(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 sheds A & C : draft environmental impact report"

City and County of San Francisco 
Department of City Planning 




HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR/PIER 45 Sheds A & C 

Draft Environmentaf Impact Report 



File No. 93.574E 
SCH #94073023 



Draft EIR Publication Date: April 26, 1996 

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: June 10, 1996 

Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: June 6, 1996 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
APR 2 6 1996 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



DOCUMENTS oirr. 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

I^iFERENCE 
BOOK 



Not U) be taken I'rom the Library 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBUC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 
Department of City Planning 



3 1223 03778 7091 



HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR/PIER 45 Sheds A & C 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

File No. 93.574E 



Draft EIR Publication Date: April 26, 1996 

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: June 10, 1996 

Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: June 6, 1996 



D REF 387.15 H995 



Hyde Stre£-t FishiT-'Q 
Harbor/Pier 45 sheds 
1996. 



3 1223 03778 7091 
S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY 



PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

City and County of San Francisco 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 

/41 'i\ ';S8-fi'?78 PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION CURRENT PLANNING /ZONING LONG RANGE PLANNING 
^ ^ FAX: 558-6409 FAX 558-6426 FAX 558-6409 FAX: 558-6426 



DATE: April 26, 1996 

TO: Distribution List for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A and C Draft EIR 

FROM: Barbara W. Sahm, Environmental Review Officer 

SUBJECT: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A and Draft EIR (Case Number 93.574E) 



This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 
Sheds A and C Proposed Project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy of 
this document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled 
"Summary of Comments and Responses" which will contain a summary of all relevant comments on 
this Draft EIR and our responses to those comments; it may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. 
Public agencies and members of the public who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will 
automatically receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document, along with notice of the 
date reserved for certification; others may receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting 
our office. This Draft EIR together with the Summary of Comments and Responses document will be 
considered by the City Planning Commission in an advertised public meeting and certified as a Final 
EIR if deemed adequate. 

After certification, we will modify the Draft EIR as specified by the Comments and Responses 
document and print both documents in a single publication called the Final Environmental Impact 
Report. The Final EIR will add no new information to the combination of the two documents except 
to reproduce the certification resolution. It will simply provide the information in one rather than two 
documents. Therefore, if you receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document in addition 
to this copy of the Draft EIR, you will technically have a copy of the Final EIR. 

We are aware that many people who receive the Draft EIR and Summary of Comments and 
Responses have no interest in receiving virtually the same information after the EIR has been 
certified. To avoid expending money and paper needlessly, we would like to send copies of the Final 
EIR to private individuals only if they request them. 

If you would like a copy of the Final EIR, therefore, please fill out and mail the postcard provided 
inside the back cover to the Office of Environmental Review within two weeks after certification of the 
EIR. Any private party not requesting a Final EIR by that time will not be mailed a copy. Public 
agencies on the distribution list will automatically receive a copy of the Final EIR. 

Thank you for your interest in this project. 



G:\WP51\93574EDL.LET 



PLACE 
POSTAGE 
HERE 



Department of City Planning 
Office of Environmental Review 
1660 Mission Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: Sharon A. Rogers, EIR Coordinator 
93.574E Hyde Street 



PLEASE CUT ALONG SOLID LINE 



RETURN REQUEST REQUIRED FOR FINAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 



REQUEST FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 

TO: Department of City Planning 

Office of Environmental Review 
Attn: Sharon A. Rogers 

File # 93.574E 
Please send me a copy of the Final EIR. 

Signed: 



Print Your Name and Address Below 



Fisherman^ Wharf 
Hyde Street Fishing Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C 
Draft Environmental impact Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Letter to Distribution List from Environmental Review Officer 
Letter or card requesting a Final EIR 

Page 



I. Summary 8-1 

II. Project Description 1 

A. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 1 

B. Project Location 4 

C. Proposed Project 14 

D. Project Approvals, Schedule and Costs 25 

III. Environmental Setting 33 

A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 33 

B. Water Quality 42 

C. Marine Biology 63 

D. Public Utilities 73 

E. Public Services 78 

F. Air Quality (Odor) 82 

G. Transportation 89 

H. Hazards 100 

IV. Potential Environmental Impacts 109 

A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 110 

B. Water Quality ill 

C. Marine Biology 124 

D. Public Utilities 126 

E. Public Services 128 

F. Air Quality (Odor) 130 

G. Transportation 134 

H. Hazards 145 

V. Mitigation Measures 165 

A. Water Quality (Best Management Practices Program) 165 

B. Public Services 169 

C. Hazards 169 

D. Cultural Resources 171 

VI. Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided 

if the Project is implemented 173 



I 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, contd 

Hyde Street Fishing Hartwr & Pier 45, Sheds A and C EIR 



Page 



VII. 



Alternatives to the Proposed Project 



175 



No Project - No physical improvements; retain existing uses 

A. Alternative A - Hyde Street Fishing HartxDr, Maximum Expansion 

B. Alternative B - Pier 45, Conference Center Focus 

C. Alternative C - Pier 45, Educational Center Focus 



176 
177 

181 
185 



VIII. 



Draft EIR Distribution List 



189 



APPENDICES 



A. Notice of EIR Requirement -Initial Study 

B. Water Quality and Sediment Quality Data, Oil Spill Notification 
and Marine Biota Effects 

C. Air Quality Standards and Data 

D. Transportation Level of Service Information 

E. Hazardous Waste Background Report 

F. EIR Authors and Consultants 



i 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, contU 

Hyde Street Fishing Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C EIR 



Page 



LIST OF TABLES 



IL Project Description 

Table 1 San Francisco Bay Area Commercial Fish Landings 1 1 

Table 2 Fish Landing Volumes at Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45 

and Selected Northern California Ports 1988 and 1993 12 

Table 3 Bay and Shoreline Band Fill By BCDC Criteria 17 



ill. Environmental Setting 



Water Quality 

Table 4 Potential Water Quality Effects on Marine Organisms 57 

Marine Biology 

Table 5 Fish Species Frequently Captured From Central Bay 67 

Table 6 Open Water Habitat Birds of San Francisco Bay 69 

Air Quality 

Table 7 Bay Area Air Basin Emmissions Inventory, 1991 86 

Transportation 

Table 8 Muni Bus Routes 93 



IV. Environmental Impacts 



Transportation 

Table 9 Person Trip Generation 136 

Table 10 Project Generated Person Trips by Mode 136 

Table 11 Intersection Level of Service - Weekday 138 

Table 12 Intersection Level of Service - Weekend 138 



Hazards 

Table 13 Summary of Land Uses Potentially Involving Hazardous Wastes 148 
Table 14 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Within One-mile Radius 

of the Project Site 154 
Table 15 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Within 1/2 mile of Planned 

Utility Alignment 156 

VII. Alternatives 



Table 16 Proposed Bay and Shoreline Fill By BCDC Criteria For Alternatives 179 

Table 17 Intersection Level of Service for Alternatives 184 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, contU 

Hyde Street Fishing Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C EIR 



Page 

LIST OF FIGURES 



\. Summary Figure S1 Existing Harbor Area S-3 

n. Project Description 

Figure 1 Project Location Map 5 

Figure 2 Existing Site Plan 6 

Figure 3 Rafting of Boats in Harbor 8 

Figure 4 Jefferson Street Truck Trading Activity 13 

Figure 5 Project Components 15 

Figure 6 Proposed Project - Fishing Harbor and Harbor Services Components 16 

Figure 7 Section: Floating Dock 19 

Figure 8 Sheds A and C Fisheries Center 24 

in. Environmental Setting 

Land Use 

Figure 9 Generalized Land Use in Project Area 36 

Figure 10 San Francisco Waterfront Plan - Fisherman's Wharf SulDarea 41 

Water Quality 

Figure 1 1 Water Quality Sampling Locations 49 
Public Utilities 

Figure 12 Stormwater Overflow Locations 74 

Figure 13 Solids Interceptor and Separator Sinks in Sheds B and D 76 

Transportation 

Figure 14 Project Study Area 90 

Figure 15 Existing Transit Network and Stop Locations 92 

Hazards 

Figure 16 Hazard Sites in Study Area 103 
IV. Impacts 

Transportation 

Figure 17 Proposed Changes to Roadway Network 141 
Hazards 

Figure 18 Location of Potential Hazardous Waste Sites 153 
Vtl. Alternatives 

Figure 19 Alternative A - Hyde Street Harbor Maximum Expansion 178 

Figure 20 Alternative B - Pier 45 Conference Center Focus 182 

Figure 21 Alternative C - Educational Center Focus 186 



iv 



I. SUMMARY 



INTRODUCTION 

The following Draft Environmental Impact Report describes the potential environmental impacts 
of a proposed project off of the Hyde Street Pier, in the Main Harbor, and on Pier 45 / Sheds A 
and C, in the Fisherman's Wharf Area of San Francisco. The project, proposed by the Port of 
San Francisco, would add 60 leasable berths/tie-up spaces off of the Hyde Street Pier for 
commercial fishing boats, and a Fisheries Center with associated meeting space, retail and 
parking in Sheds A and C. This report addresses those issues that the Planning Department of 
the City and County of San Francisco, in an Initial Study, determined to have the potential to 
cause significant impacts on the environment. 

PROJECT BACKGROUND ( pp 1 to 13 ) 

In 1988, the Port of San Francisco proposed a project in the Fisherman's Wharf harbor that 
included major renovations to the fish processing industries located in Sheds B and D on Pier 
45, and the addition of 88 new floating berths off of the Hyde Street Pier. Environmental review 
was undertal<en and a preliminary negative declaration published. Extensive public controversy 
caused the Port to withdraw consideration of the project. In October of 1989, the Loma Prieta 
earthquake did substantial damage to a portion of the Hyde Street Pier and all of the Sheds on 
Pier 45. Sheds A, B and C were closed and the tenants who were fish processors moved to 
Shed D, Fish Alley and other Port facilities. A CEQA Statutory Emergency Exemption for repair 
of the earthquake damage and restoration of the fish processing facilities was issued by the 
Planning Department's Office of Environmental Review in November of 1989. The Port s plans 
for restoring the sheds for fish processing uses were examined, and it was found that the 
amount of space allocated to fish processing and related circulation in Sheds B and D, after 
completion of earthquake repairs, would be essentially the same as the amount of space that 
existed for those uses prior to the earthquake; thus, an emergency exemption was applicable. 

The restoration of the sheds was primarily funded by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA); work began in 1992 and was completed in the summer of 1995. As of 

S - 1 



I. SUMMARY 



been seismically reinforced and the damaged utilities replaced and brought into conformity with 
current codes. The sewer and water lines, drains, traps, and sinks that existed in Sheds B and 
D prior to the earthquake were antiquated and inadequate for industrial use. The restored fish 
processing facilities were designed and built to meet the current rigorous health, safety and 
performance standards for the handling and processing* of fresh fish. The Ports Intention was, 
and continues to be, to accommodate the fish handling industry in the most modern, sanitary, 
and attractive facilities possible. 

The existing 1 1 6 leased spaces for commercial fishing boats in the harbor is located at Wharves 
J 3, 4, 5, and J 7, 8, 9, 10 which are on the inner and outer lagoons on the landside of the main 
basin. Please see Figure 1S that shows these areas. The existing berths available for lease by 
the Port in the lagoons at Fisherman's Wharf are 100 percent occupied, and there is some 
demand for transient berthing and for boats 40-50 feet in length which is currently unmet. 

A breakwater, which shelters the entire harbor from Pier 45 to Hyde Street, was constructed with 
U.S. Government funding in the early '80's. The Hyde Street Pier was originally constructed in 
1 922 as a ferry pier. A major portion of the Hyde Street Pier is leased by the Port to the 
National Park Sen/ice (NFS) for the National Maritime Park. Pier 45 is located across the harbor 
(in an easterly direction) from the Hyde Street Pier. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (pp 1 to 25) 

The Port has three overall objectives for this project: to construct a harbor that can 
accommodate the unmet demand for berthing of the existing commercial fishing industry vessels 
and that would improve the convenience, safety and efficiency of harbor operations; to provide 
needed harbor sen/ice facilities for the boat operators and their crews; and to provide for the 
public and visitors uses in Sheds A and C on Pier 45 that are complementary to the fishing 
industry operations and to the Fisherman's Wharf area and are accessible to the public and to 
visitors. 

• 

Hyde Street Fishino Harbor 

The proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor would include reconfiguration of the east side of Hyde 
Street Pier (located to the west of Pier 45, across the main basin) to allow for the construction of 



I. SUMMARY 



facilities for a total of 60 boats (see Figure 6); there would be 40 permanent floating berths and 
20 side tie/stern tie spaces. This would increase the number of leasable spaces in the harbor 
area to a total of 1 76 spaces. 

Some surface area Bay coverage, and Bay fill, as well as dredging and pile driving, would be 
necessary to create the floating berths and supporting facilities. Reconstruction of the east side 
of Hyde Street Pier would include the removal and relocation of the existing rock fill and 
replacement of the timber pier structure with concrete piles. Approximately 22,723 square feet 
of additional coverage/fill (including 270 cubic yards of supporting piles) in the Bay and about 
9,475 square feet of additional coverage / 715 cubic yards of fill in the Shoreline Band would be 
required to construct the pier extension and berthing spaces. Of that total, the new berthing 
system would consist of permanent floating berths with separating floats representing about 
17,700 square feet of Bay coverage, supported by a concrete guide pile berthing system having 
53 new 24-inch rectangular concrete piles; this would represent 270 cubic yards of fill in the Bay. 

The new vessel facilities would include the following features: berths would be enclosed on two 
sides by floats with encased foam pontoons that would ride slightly below the surface of the 
water; no berthing would be provided on the west side of the float closest to the Hyde Street 
Pier and Aquatic Park; the westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible "skirt" which would 
eliminate gaps between floats and provide a measure of water quality protection. (See Figure 7); 
a single security gate would be located at the shore end of the pier; there would be lighting, 
electrical power, water and fire protection systems, and deck boxes for each berth. Runoff 
would be collected in gutters located along the pier edge or in a central depression, to direct 
storm water to an oil-water separator before disposal to the Bay. A single security gate at the 
end of the pier would limit access to the pier and floating dock to permitted boat operators and 
harbor personnel. 

Harbor Service Facilities 

The additional new harbor service facilities designed to serve both the new and existing berths 
would be located partially on new fill, described above under Hyde Street Pier reconstruction. 
Facilities would include: a work dock; 3000 square feet of public access provided at the foot of 
the new pier; and a restroom of 200 square feet rtear the fueling area for use by fishermen. The 

S-4 



i. SUMMARY 



existing fuel station building of 420 square feet, now located on a pile-supported pier, would be 
retained and the existing fuel dock area of 1 ,450 square feet would be provided with lighting and 
oil spill containment equipment. A new replacement fuel delivery pipeline (140 feet long) from 
the location of the new tanks (not a part of this project) south of the seawall to the fuel dock 
would include automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, remote operated shutoff 
switch, and pressure sensitive valves. A vessel sewage pump-out station would be installed 
adjacent to the fuel dock area with a 20 gallon per minute (gpm) pump-out capability directly 
connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. The dock area would have a central depression 
to direct storm water to the oil-water separator prior to disposal to the Bay. A 40 square foot 
oily waste disposal facility would be provided in a clearly marked location In the working area 
and at an existing facility along Fish Alley. 

Parking for 21 vehicles to be used by the fisherman, is proposed over existing land and /or over 
relocated fill. Additionally, 24 parking spaces would be provided in the location of the Bell 
Smoked Fish building at the backside of the building at 490 Jefferson. About 4,300 square feet 
of building structure would be demolished to make room for this parking. 

Pier 45 / New Uses in Sheds A and C 

The Port is proposing to develop uses for Sheds A and C on Pier 45 which would be 
complementary to the fishing industry. These two sheds contain approximately 140,000 square 
feet of ground floor area and space for a mezzanine of about 50,000 square feet. Sheds A and 
C, on the east side of Pier 45, are adjacent to the fish processors' located in Sheds B and D (the 
fish processors would not be relocated as a result of this proposal). The three alternative uses 
under consideration are: a Fisheries Center, a Conference Center, or an Education Center. The 
Conference and Education Center Alternatives will be discussed at the end of this section. 

The Porf s preferred project for Pier 45 / Sheds A and C is the Fisheries Center. The purpose of 
the Fisheries Center would be to educate the public and allow observation of a working 
commercial fishing harbor and pier. There would be: 25,000 square feet of Visitor Center space 
in Shed C dedicated to displays and exhibits to promote public education of the fisheries and 
seafood industries and the marine environment; a 1 ,200 to 3,000 square foot interactive theater 
and 2,000 to 5,000 square feet of related retail space (gift shop and book store); and a 2.000 to 
4,000 square foot cafe or food service area. The Fisheries Center conference and meeting 



S-5 



I. SUMMARY 



facilities would have about 20,000 square feet of Shed C Improved for use as a meeting place 
for conferences and special events. Retail space of up to 40,000 square feet would also be 
Included. Maritime related office space of 10,000 square feet could be located in mezzanine 
space In Shed C. Public access would Include 20,000 square feet of Shed A and 25,000 square 
feet of Shed C, on the pier apron; this would provide a promenade along the eastern water's 
edge of Pier 45. There would be 200 parking spaces located inside Sheds A and C. The 
existing 68 spaces on the forepier would remain. Two truck loading docks would be provided in 
the "valley", but no parking for Sheds A or C would be permitted In the "valley" to minimize 
conflicts with commercial fish trucks. 

Approvals Required ( pp 26 to pp 32 ) 

Approvals would be required from the City Planning Commission, the Port Commission, the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, 
review of the project by the State l-ands Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 
California Department of Boating and Waterways, and the Coast Guard, would also occur. 

The Project would require an amendment to the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the 
Master Plan of the City and County of San Francisco which designates hotel, commercial office 
and residential uses on Pier 45. It would also require Conditional Use Authorization from the 
Planning Commission for non-maritime uses (meeting facilities, retail, and food service) in the 
Northern Waterfront Special Use District 1. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Land Use (pp 35 to pp 38), Zoning (pp 38), and Bav Fill (p 17) 
Land uses within the project site, and fishing-related uses In particular, would not be 
substantially altered by the proposed project. The potential to lease berthing and dock space to 
fishing vessels would allow more control of fishing vessels In the harbor and would minimize the 
number of rafted and double or triple-tied vessels. The number of commercial fishing vessels in 
the harbor is not anticipated to grow substantially based on the declining volume of fish landings 
since 1988. The truck-tjased fish-trading activity that occurs on Jefferson Street Is not an 
operation controlled by the Port and would not be expected to change due to the project. 

S -6 



I. SUMMARY 



Proposed uses on Pier 45 would include activities new to Slieds A and C, but would be 
designed to be compatible with fishing- and/or visitor-related activities in the vicinity. These 
uses are not expected to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established 
community, nor substantially change the character of the vicinity. 

There would be approximately 22,723 square feet of additional Bay fill in the form of Bay 
coverage from the berthing system, and 715 cubic yards of solid fill for the shoreline/pier 
improvements. There would be 2,180 square yards of fill removed and 48,000 square feet of 
Improved public access as a part of the project. 

Water Quality ( pp 111 - 123 ) 

Ongoing activities which have been identified as potentially causing water quality impacts to the 
project area and the adjacent Aquatic Park include the following: fish handling and processing 
activities; potential fuel spillage and leakage (including bilge water) from the vessels, fueling 
activities, equipment failure, and maintenance activities; the presence of commercial fishing and 
other vessels, either permanent or transient; pier and boat deck runoff and washdown 
discharged directly to the Bay; litter and trash generated by harbor users and visitors; effects 
of dredging, filling and other construction activities on Bay water quality. All of these activities 
have been ongoing in the project vicinity for decades. 

Each of these activities was studied, and is discussed in the DEIR in terms of the likelihood of 
their occuring at a more intense level as a result of the proposed project, and their potential to 
affect Bay water quality, based on existing and historical water quality conditions. Results of 
the studies include: there is no indication of a relationship between the data on levels of 
conform in the harbor waters and fish landing data or fish processing activities; other sources of 
conform bacteria, such as wet weather sewer overflows, are known to be present in the project 
area; present fish processing and waste handling practices indicate that no discharges large 
enough to cause measurable water quality problems occur to the Bay from those activities. 
There appears to be no direct relationship between fish processing activities and bacteriological 
water quality; other sources, such as wet weather sewer overflows to the Bay, appear to be 
more directly associated with coliform levels. 



S-7 



I. SUMMARY 



Any increased level of fish processing activity that might be associated with improved harbor 
facilities due to the proposed project would be subject to similar fish handling and waste 
disposal regulations and practices as the existing activities in Sheds B and D. Consequently, 
similar to existing practices, any incremental increase in level of fish processing activity would 
not be expected to affect Bay water quality. 

The proposed project would not result in any increased potential for fuel or oil spills from fishing 
vessels over that which currently exists. It is designed to provide improved facilities to 
accommodate the existing number of vessels using the harbor by providing dock space for 
boats now rafted or double-tied in the harbor, and the Port will continue its existing programs 
and practices to minimize fuel spills to the Bay and harbor. The project would include 
improvements at the existing fuel dock which would reduce the potential for fuel spills in the 
Harbor associated with the fuel dock. 

The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a noticeable increase in the number of 
vessels using the harbor, and therefore, no increase would occur in potential for waste 
discharge from boats than currently exists. The new sewage handling facilities that would be 
included in the project would provide a convenience for the commercial fishermen and reduce 
the likelihood of illegal discharges to the Bay, which would indirectly protect water quality in the 
Bay. 

Although the proposed project would not result in any increased potential for waste discharge 
from boats, there are additional procedures the Port could implement to minimize the likelihood 
of illegal discharge of wastes to harbor waters and to assure that waste disposal facilities are 
properly used. This could include increasing the coverage (24 hours/day and weekends) of 
wharfinger supervision and oversight of commercial boating and berthing activities at the 
proposed harbor. Water quality effects associated with discharge of stormwater to the Bay 
would not be expected to change substantially from the existing conditions. 

Implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to affect the amount of litter or 
trash carried to the Bay. The Port could implement measures to improve the existing water 
quality conditions, such as increasing the frequency of the Ports work skiff operation and 



S -8 



I. SUMMARY 



coordinating with restaurant owners and nearby commercial operators to improve housekeeping 
practices. 

Construction activities in the Bay, such as dredging, placement of fill and rock materials, removal 
of existing piles, and installation of concrete piles would result in temporary, localized increases 
in turbidity and suspended solids, and decreases in dissolved oxygen. These effects would be 
short term and would be minimized by compliance with conditions that address the preservation 
of water quality that the Port must follow in all dredging episodes and which are included In 
construction specifications. Construction work in the Bay is permitted by the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission both of which establish 
these conditions. Similar to dredging activities, the Port would, as it is required to do by the 
California Department of Fish and Game, schedule in-Bay construction activities to avoid 
conflicts with the herring spawning season. In addition, as part of a good neighbor policy, the 
Port attempts to avoid conflicts with the scheduled activities of the swimming clubs. 

Marine Biology ( pp 124 - 125 ) 

The reconstruction of the Hyde Street Pier would include removal of some existing rock and 
timber and placement of new rock and concrete fill. This would result in loss of habitat for some 
species and a gain in potential habitat for others. An estimated 0.16 acres of rock and timber 
would be removed, however, 0.43 acres of rock and concrete would be gained, resulting in a net 
increase of 0.27 acres of new substrate. Similarly, the 53 new concrete piles supporting the 
proposed floating dock would provide additional substrate for colonization by intertidal 
organisms. The losses of benthic habitat would be short-term due to proposed replacement of 
alternative substrate material. 

Public Utilities ( pp 126 to 127 ) 

If the proposed project is implemented, an increase in impermeable surface areas, associated 
primarily with the floating berths and walkways, would occur. Stormwater runoff from these 
surfaces would drain directly to the Harbor. The estimated increase in impermeable surfaces 
associated with the floating berths and walkways would not affect the existing combined 
stormwater/sewer collection system. 



S -9 



I. SUMMARY 



Public Services ( pp 128 to 129 ) 

The incremental increase in demands for police services could be accommodated to some 
extent by the existing police force, although crime prevention measures would be required to 
minimize the additional demands for police services. Existing levels of staffing and equipment at 
the San Francisco Fire Department and the Port Fire Marshal would be expected to be adequate 
to accommodate any incremental increase in demands for their services. 

Air Quality ( pp 130 - 133 ) 

It is unlikely that any increased level of fish processing activities associated with the proposed 
project would result in a noticeable increase in "fish" odors in the project area, particularly in 
Aquatic Park. In addition, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any 
increased odors associated with boating and vessel activity, such as diesel fumes, since the 
project would be designed to accommodate the existing level of boating activity and an increase - 
in number of boats is not anticipated. 

Transportation ( pp 1 34 - 1 44 ) 

The Hyde Street Harbor component of the project would have an increase of 45 spaces over the 
number of parking spaces that currently exist. The spaces would serve the existing users of the 
Harbor in that it is not anticipated that the improvements at the Harbor would result in an 
increase in the number of vehicle trips to the Harbor. Existing and future trips to the Harbor are 
already included as part of the existing traffic volumes and operating conditions in the study 
area. 

The preferred component of the project for Pier 45 Sheds A and C, the Fisheries Center, would 
generate a total of 58 vehicle-trips during the weekday AM peak hour, 81 vehicle-trips during the 
weekday PM peak hour, and 98 vehicle-trips during the weekend midday peak hour. With the 
proposed project, traffic operating conditions at the five study Intersections would remain 
essentially unchanged. Under all conditions, all intersections would operate at Level of Service 
B or better except the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero, which would operate 
at LOS C in the future with the proposed project and cumulative growth. If portions of Taylor 
Street and the Embarcadero were to operate as two-way streets near Pier 45, all intersections, 
including that at Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero, would operate at Los B. The proposed 



S - 10 



I. SUMMARY 



project would not cause the Level of Service to degrade to an unacceptable Level of Service E 
or F during the weekday AM or PM peak hours, nor during the weekend midday peak hour. 

The Harbor berthing addition is not expected to create any additional parking or loading 
requirenrients due to the fact that the additional berths would not bring in a noticeable number of 
new boats and forty-five parking spaces are being added in close proximity to the additional 
berths. The proposed improvements to Sheds A and C of 95,000 square feet of visitor center, 
retail and conference center space would require 193 parking spaces according to the San 
Francisco Planning Code. A total of 200 spaces would be added to be utilized as shared 
spaces by the users of Sheds A and C. The peak parking demand for the Fisheries Center 
would be approximately 1 1 7 spaces. Based on the square footage and the proposed uses, one 
loading space is required, and one space would be provided for each of the two sheds. 

Transit demand generated by the proposed project is expected to be minimal. It would be 
distributed between four existing transit lines and two cable car lines that serve the project area. 
Most of the existing MUNI lines have excess capacities in the vicinity of the project. The F- 
Market line which is a new operative line could relieve the over-capacity condition that exists 
with the cable cars during the weekday PM peak and the weekend midday peak hour. 
Therefore it is not anticipated that this additional transit demand would result in impacts to 
transit. 

A pedestrian crosswalk analysis was conducted for Existing Plus Project conditions at the 
intersection of Taylor and Jefferson Streets for the weekday and weekend midday peak hours. 
The addition of project-generated pedestrian trips to existing pedestrian volumes would not 
result in a noticeable change in the LOS from existing conditions. 

Hazards ( pp 145 - 163 ) 

A 20,000-gallon and a 210,000-gallon above ground fuel tanks will supply diesel to the fuel dock; 
the tanks would be located at 440 Jefferson Street. There would be 300 feet of pipe from the 
tanks to the fueling station replaced and equipped with automatic shut off features, a leak 
detection system, a remote operated shut off switch, and pressure sensitive valves as part of the 
proposed project. The fuel dock would also be provided with spill containment equipment. Any 
hazardous materials identified in the buildings or piers would be properly removed and disposed 



S - 11 



I. SUMMARY 



of by Port staff and/or subcontractors prior to pier removal or building renovation or denfiolition. 
The removal and disposal would be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and 
local hazardous materials regulations described in Appendix E. This would minimize the 
potential risk of exposure of workers and the public to hazardous building materials. 

Installation of the proposed utilities would require excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of soil 
along the alley leading to the fuel dock and pump out facility. Hazardous wastes may potentially 
be present in the soil due to previous land uses along the proposed utility alignment. Based on 
the results of the site history, computerized record search, regulatory agency files, and a visual 
reconnaissance by a consultant there are numerous potential sources of hazardous materials 
and wastes within a one-half mile radius. The regulatory databases used to identify these sites 
are discussed in Appendix E. The Port would be required to sample and analyze any excess 
soil that could not be placed back in the excavation so that the soil could be classified for 
disposal purposes. Depending on the chemical quality it may be disposed of at a Class I, Class 
II, or Class III disposal facility within California. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbon levels greater 
than 100 milligrams per kilogram must be treated or disposed of at a Class I or II landfill. 

It is estimated that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged to create 
the planned berths. Based on the sediment sampling and the bioassay results, it is expected 
that the sediments would be suitable for disposal at the Alcatraz disposal site. Minimal worker 
or public exposure to sediments would be expected during sediment dredging and disposal. 

MITIGATION MEASURES ( pp 165 to 172 ) 

In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified that would reduce 
or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Some of these measures 
have been, or would be, voluntarily adopted by the Port and thus are proposed; some are under 
consideration. Implementation of some measures may be the responsibility of other agencies. 
Measures under consideration may be required by the Port Commission, or the Planning 
Commission, as conditions of project approval, if the project were to be approved. Each 
mitigation measure and its status is discussed in the document. 



S - 12 



I. SUMMARY 



There are several measures required by law that would serve to mitigate potential impacts; they 
are included and summarized for informational purposes in the body of the DEIR. Examples are 
those measures related to: water quality; observance of state and federal OSHA safety 
requirements related to handling and disposal of hazardous materials; dredging; police and fire 
protection; and utilities services. 

No significant impacts are identified for any of the areas studied in this DEIR: Land Use and 
Zoning, Water Quality, Marine Biology, Public Utilities, Transportation, or Hazards. These areas 
do not require mitigation to prevent significant impacts. However, several measures have been 
suggested to the Port during preparation of this DEIR and several measures are included as part 
of the proposed project to further reduce potential impacts. 

Water Quality 

The measures that follow are proposed as part of the project. The Port has in place a "Best 
Management Plan" for dealing with the water quality issues related to maintenance dredging, oil 
spills, and cleanup of floatables in the Harbor. It now includes measures required by law and 
those that are described as part of the project. Measures required by law address oil spill 
response, dredging practices, disposal of spoils, and the handling of other wastes from boats. 
The Port would continue to: educate Port personnel and fishing boat owners about illegal 
discharges; use a work skiff daily to collect floating debris; and avoid dredging activities during 
herring spawning season. 

Because of the proximity to Aquatic Park and the ongoing concem about water quality issues, 
the Port has agreed to expand its existing "Best Management Practices Plan" to include specific 
measures described in Section IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS for further protecting and 
enhancing water quality in the Harbor. 

New measures proposed by the Port as part of the project would include: installation of new 
equipment to minimize the potential for fuel leaks from the storage tanks to the fuel dock; 
provision of an oil-water separator for the fuel dock area designed to collect runoff and direct 
stormwater to the separator prior to disposal in the Bay; installation of a new pump-out station 
at the fuel dock for disposal of chemical toilet wastes from the boats in the Harbor; enclosure of 
new berths on three sides by floats having protective pontoons and skirts to contain floatable 



S - 13 



I. SUMMARY 



wastes within the Harbor; use of temporary wraps on any piles to be removed to reduce the 
release of particles to the Bay; and coordination of dredging activities so as not to conflict with 
scheduled swimming activities or herring season. 

Public Services: 

The proposed project would comply with all laws and ordinances related to egress, fire 
prevention and fire spread control. 

Hazards 

There were no significant impacts identified in relation to hazardous wastes. There are a number 
of mitigation measures required by law to address the potential presence of hazardous wastes 
within the project area. See V. MITIGATION MEASURES, pages 168 to 170. The measures 
include a survey of buildings in the project area to identify potential hazardous building materials 
which would be abated in accordance with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration and federal, 
state and local laws. The Port will insure compliance with the San Francisco Public Works 
Code, Section 1000, Article 20, "Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Wastes" if more than fifty 
cubic yards of soil is excavated and a site mitigation plan would be prepared if results of testing 
indicate the necessity for it. 

Cultural Resources 

The Initial Study provided that the program of archaeological monitoring described in the 1989 
report would mitigate potentially significant impacts of the project and it is therefore included in 
this DEIR, as follows: given the strong possibility of encountering the remains of cultural or 
historic artifacts or features within the project site, the Port would retain the services of an 
archaeologist(s) with expertise in both prehistoric and ethnographic materials and maritime 
history to supervise a program of on-site monitoring during site excavation. See page 171 In the 
DEIR for the complete measure. 

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (pp 175-184) 

As part of the environmental review process for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A 
and C project, the City has analyzed three alteVnatives. Neither the preferred project nor any of 



S - 14 



I. SUMMARY 



the alternatives studied would result in significant environmental impacts. However, the 
proposed project is the environmentally superior project because it is a reduced scale of harbor 
development and would result in less Bay cover and Bay fill. The Port, as the project sponsor, 
has not rejected any of the three alternatives. The maximum harbor expansion alternative 
proposed by the Port in 1988 is no longer believed to be necessary at this time or economically 
feasible, given the decreasing volume of the commercial fishing haul and the fewer number of 
vessels in the Bay Area. However, this alternative is retained for informational purposes and for 
future possible consideration by the Port. 

One alternative design for the Harbor and Harbor Services Area is considered, and two 
alternative uses for Pier 45 Sheds A and C are considered. Because most physical changes 
for each of the alternatives are the same as for the proposed project, the analysis focuses on 
features or uses that would have differences. For the Harbor Berths and Service Area 
Alternative, the analysis focuses on potential effects to water quality and marine biology from an 
expanded dock area (86 floating berths compared with 40 floating berths for the proposed 
project). The quantities of bay fill for the two Harbor alternatives differ. For the two Pier 45 
Sheds A and C Alternatives, the analysis focuses on identifying differences in traffic and parking 
impacts. 

In addition to reasonable alternatives to the project, CEQA requires that the EIR evaluate the "No 
Project" Alternative. The No Project Alternative analysis must discuss existing conditions as well 
as reasonably foreseeable future conditions, without the project based on current plans and 
available infrastructure. 

No Project Alternative 

The No Project Alternative would consist of leaving the conditions in the Main Harbor, which is 
bordered by the Hyde Street Pier on the west, the breakwater on the north, and Pier 45 on the 
east, as they exist now. The key features of the No Project Alternative (existing conditions) are: 
retention of the 116 assigned boat slips; within the Inner and Outer Lagoons of the Harbor, 
boats would continue to side-tie and double-stack, and facilities for these activities would not be 
upgraded; no pump-out or restrooms would be available to fishing vessels or operators. On 
Pier 45 Sheds A and C: existing storage would be retained; parking in the sheds, valley, and 
on "forepier" would remain; special events in the Sheds would occur periodically; space for 



S - 15 



I. SUMMARY 



temporary special art and cultural exhibits, and other short term community events would 
continue; a staging area for visiting ships and the Pampanito would remain; 1000 sq. ft. office 
space in Shed A would remain; and informal, unimproved public access along the outside 
aprons of Pier 45 would continue. Also, on Pier 45 Sheds B and D, it is anticipated that the fish 
handling would fully occupy the 140,000 sq. ft. 

Information describing the existing conditions of the project area is in Section III. SETTING (pp 
33 to 108) . The existing conditions of inadequate berth space for commerical fishing boats in 
the harbor, limited parking for the fishing boat crews, poor sanitary facilities, and outdated 
fueling equipment with a greater possiblitiy of spills, would remain. The existing working wharf, 
which includes Piers 45, 47, Fish Alley (Seawall lots 302 and 303) and the adjacent water and 
berthing space, is a fish distribution center for the San Francisco Bay Area and source of 
seafood for Wharf area restaurants. There are minimal harbor service facilities to support the 
commercial fishing industry. Under the No Project Alternative this would not change. The 
existing mix of tourist serving uses, limited public access and support space for ferries and other 
vessels would not change, except as there could be some incremental minor changes over time. 

Alternative A - Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Maximum Expansion 

The maximum expansion Alternative A for the Harbor and Harbor Services was developed from 
the results of the 1988 Feasibility Study. Survey information in 1988 defined future needs of the 
commercial fishing industry and indicated a need for an expanded facility for fishing boats and 
the need for a new Harbormaster's Building in the harbor area. Survey information collected in 
1994-1995 indicated that the increased need no longer exists; therefore this project alternative is 
not now considered reasonable by the Port staff. However, this Alternative A has been retained 
in this DEIR for comparison purposes with the Proposed Project. In the event that the needs of 
the commercial fishing industry return to 1988 conditions in the relatively near future (5-10 years) 
this analysis could aid in the consideration of future expansion of harbor facilities. 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor maximum expansion Alternative A would have these features: 
off the Hyde Street Pier, construct new berths for 116 boats, which would have 86 floating 
berths, 10 side tie spaces and 10 stern tie spaces; retain the existing 99 assignable boat berths 
+ 17 dock-tie boat spaces in the Fisherman's Wharf Inner and Outer Lagoons; provide a new 
4,100-sq. ft. Harbormaster's Building on the reconstructed area of the Hyde Street Pier (this 



S - 16 



I. SUMMARY 



alternative would involve 32,150 sq. ft. of Bay cover and 126 concrete piles); add 24 more 
parking spaces approximately 200 feet south of the Pier and 28 parking spaces on the Pier; a 
new fuel station and harbormaster's building; and a vessel sewage pump-out station. 

There were no substantial differences in traffic or parking effects for this alternative compared to 
the proposed project because some boats originate from other Bay Area locations and there is 
not a one-to-one ratio between fishing boats and vehicles in the project area. Additionally, 
vehicle traffic associated with commercial fishing does not occur during peak traffic commute 
periods. 

Water quality conditions would be expected to remain similar to existing conditions, which is 
generally within the same range as water quality from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay and in 
compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives, because no direct relationship has been 
found between the presence of fishing boats and water quality effects. There would be short- 
term water quality effects such as increased turbidity and suspended solids during construction, 
as with the proposed project, but following construction, conditions would be expected to be in 
compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives similar to existing conditions, the No Project 
alternative, and the Proposed Project. The maximum build-out alternative (Alternative A) would 
increase Bay cover from floating berths by 14,450 sq. ft. compared with the proposed project. 
The total increase in fill/cover over the proposed project would be 31,505 sq. ft. of cover and 
647 cy of fill in the Bay, and 3,315 sq. ft. of cover and 460 cy of fill in the Shoreline Band. Within 
the Shoreline Band BCDCs primary criteria for evaluation is maximum public access; Alternative 
A would provide the same public access as the proposed project. Alternative A does not 
include additions to or changes in the uses of the Sheds on Pier 45. 

Alternative B - Pier 45 Sheds a and C - Conference Center Focus 

The differences between the Pier 45 Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Project are interior 
building design and uses of the Pier Sheds A and C. The exterior of the Sheds would not 
change, and the proposed Hyde Street Harbor expansion and improvements would be as 
described for the Proposed Project. The conceptual design for a Conference Center focus in 
the sheds is shown on Figure 20, page 180. It is summarized as follows: PIER 45 Sheds A and 
C would have 205,000 square feet of new uses: a Conference Center containing 60.000 sq. ft. of 



S - 17 



I. SUMMARY 



multi-functional conference facility and event space; 50,000 sq. ft. of parking; 40,000 sq. ft. of 
retail; 10,000 sq. ft. of office space; and 45,000 sq. ft. of outdoor public access. 

The travel demand of the Conference Center Alternative B, which does not include the visitor 
center use that is part of the proposed project, but has a greater square footage of conference 
facility, would be expected to generate a higher number of vehicle-trips than the Proposed 
Project. Traffic operating conditions were analyzed for the intersections closest to the Pier. 
Under the Conference Center alternative, all intersections would operate at LOS B or better. 
The Conference Center alternative would, in general, result in larger number of transit riders than 
the Proposed Project during the weekend midday peak hour about 50 trips. These trips would 
be distributed between the existing transit lines, the cable cars, and the new F-Market line. It is 
anticipated that these trips would be accommodated within the existing and planned transit lines 
which currently operate with available capacity for additional passengers. 

Under the Conference Center alternative, the LOS for conditions for the crosswalks at Jefferson 
and Taylor Streets would be the same as identified for the Proposed Project. All crosswalks 
would operate at LOS D or better, except for the east crosswalk which would continue to 
operate at LOS E. 

Parking/Loading Conditions: The Conference Center alternative would result in a parking 
demand of 1 18 spaces (compared with the proposed parking supply of 200 spaces). Under this 
alternative the Planning Code requirement would be 260 spaces, and therefore there would be a 
shortfall of 60 Code-required spaces. As part of the conditional use request to be reviewed by 
the Planning Commission, a reduction in Code required spaces could be granted. Loading 
activity associated with this alternative would result in a daily demand of 15 delivery/service trips 
per day, and a demand for one loading space during the peak and average hours; two are 
proposed, and thus the demand would be met. All other potential effects would be the same as 
described for the proposed project because Alternative A would have the same harbor features 
as the proposed project. 

Alternative C - Pier 45 Sheds a and C - Educational Center Focus 

Similar to the Proposed Project use of Sheds A and C, and to Alternative B above, the Pier 45 
Educational Center Focus Alternative would involve physical changes to the interior design and 

S - 18 



I. SUMMARY 



use of the Sheds. The facilities for the Pier 45 Education Center Focus are shown in Figure 21 
(page 184). Alternative C for Pier 45 Sheds A and C would create 235,000 square feet of new 
uses. The Education Center would occupy 125,000 square feet and function as a multipurpose 
facility to serve both the seafood industry and visitors; it would be designed for public viewing 
and hands-on education to include bilingual fish processing training, seafood inspection, retail 
nnarketing, " In-class workshops", seafood cooking and demonstrations. There would be no 
conference center space (compared with 50,000 SF for proposed project); parking would 
occupy 50, 000 square feet (same as proposed project); other retail - 15,000 square feet 
(compared with 40,000 square feet for proposed project); no office space (compared with 
10,000 square feet for the proposed project); and Outdoor Public Access of 45,000 square feet 
would be the same as the preferred alternative. 

Travel demand for the Educational Center alternative, which includes predominantly 
education/visitor uses, would generate about 108 more vehicle-trips than the Preferred 
Alternative during the weekday PM and an increase of 91 vehicles during the weekend midday 
peak hours. The alternative would contribute less than 1 0% to the intersections of 
Taylor/Jefferson and Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero during the weekend midday peak 
hour, and approximately 15% during the weekday PM peak hour. Despite the estimated 
increase in vehicle trips, the nearby intersections would operate at LOS conditions similar to the 
proposed project with the Educational Center alternative. All intersections would operate at LOS 
B or better. (See Table 18, page 189). 

Transit/Pedestrian Conditions for the the Educational Center alternative would result in larger 
number of transit riders than the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, the trips 
would be distributed among the existing and proposed new transit lines serving the Fisherman's 
Wharf area, which currently have available capacity. The weekend pedestrian conditions at the 
intersection of Jefferson and Taylor would be similar to the existing conditions as well as those 
identified for the Proposed Project. All crosswalks would operate at LOS D or better, except for 
the east crosswalk which would continue to operate at LOS E. The Educational Center 
alternative would result in a parking deficit of about 57 spaces. However, the Planning Code 
requirement of 93 spaces would be met by the 200 proposed spces in Sheds A and C. The 
Educational Center Alternative would generate a daily demand of 15 delivery/service trips per 



S - 19 



I. SUMMARY 



day, and a demand for one loading space during the peak and average hours; two loading 
docks are proposed. 

All other potential effects would be the same as those described for the Proposed Project. 



S -20 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



A. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR 

The Port of San Francisco (Port) is proposing to construct the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, a 
new 60 space floating dock harbor to add to the existing 116 berth (99 berths and 17 side-tie 
spaces) commercial fishing harbor at Fisherman's Wharf, and to develop uses complementary to 
the fishing industry on Pier 45 In approximately 140,000 to 190,000 square feet of Sheds A and 
0. These proposed projects relate to earlier improvements made in the Fisherman's Wharf area 
to serve the commercial fishing industry. The earlier projects include: a breakwater built by the 
U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers in 1986; approximately $11.6 million in earthquake repairs at Pier 
45 completed in August of 1995; a centrally located harbormaster's office at the existing harbor 
completed in May of 1995; and extension of fuel dock hours and lowering of prices for fishermen 
accomplished in 1995.^ 

The Port's objective is to construct a harbor that can accommodate the unmet demand for 
berthing of the existing commercial fishing industry, thereby improving the convenience, safety 
and efficiency of harbor operations. The existing 116 berths and side-tie spaces leased by the 
Port in the lagoons at Fisherman's Wharf are 100 percent occupied, and there is some demand 
for transient berthing and longer boats (40-50 foot) which is currently unmet. For example, it is 
common to have forty or more boats rafted (tied to a pier and tied to other boats) in the harbor 
and 12 to 14 boats side-tied to Pier 45 because of the limited number of berths in Fisherman's 
Wharf.^ Many longer boats overhang the existing berths. Commercial fishing boats are the 
harbor's priority user and the Port gives them preferential berth assignments.^ In the last three 



' Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, memo dated May 23, 1995. 
^Conversation with John Davey, Port Wharfinger, April, 1995. 

^According to San Francisco Port Commission Terminal Teuitf, FMC No. 4, Rules and Regulations (March i. 1994), 
"Every boat entering the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission shall inrvnediately become subject to the 
authority and direction of the Chief Wharfinger. Each boat shall be berthed in the space assigned by the Chief 
Wharfinger" (Item No. 820). . . .Preferential Assignment is the priority right granted a person to use a certain stall space 
at Fisherman's Lagoon, including such improvements and areas as are designated in the assignment. Conrvriercial 
Fishing Vessels, Historical Commercial Fishing Vessels and Fishing Party Boats shall be given priority over Pleasure 
Boats for these stalls" (Item No. 831). 



1 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
A. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

years (1992/93, 1993/94 and 1994/95) approximately 170 commercial fishing vessels were in 
the lagoons and harbor on a daily basis during the herring season.* 

Although fish landings data show that the volume of landings in the Bay Area has declined by 
about 40% since 1988, and about 52% in San Francisco,* the Port believes that the existing 
facilities at Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 45 are insufficient to meet both existing and future 
commercial fishing industry needs. However, due to the seasonal nature of the comercial fishing 
industry, there may be times when the Fishing Harbor is not fully leased and recreation boats 
will be provided an opportunity to temporarily use spaces.' 

The existing harbor does not have a pump-out facility for boats to remove sanitary waste from 
their on-board storage tanks, nor does the existing harbor have restrooms for boat operators. 
The proposed project would include a pump-out and restroom adjacent to the existing fuel dock 
on the east side of the Hyde Street Pier. Parking for boat operators would also be provided at 
the foot of the Hyde Street Pier and at the backside of the building at 490 Jefferson. 

The Port is also proposing to place new uses complimentary to the fishing industry in the 
existing Sheds A and C on Pier 45 as part of the project. Together these two sheds contain 
approximately 140,000 square feet of ground space and are adjacent to Sheds B and D, which 
are leased for fish processing and fish handling. From 1993 to 1995 the Port made seismic and 
building code improvements to Pier 45. Since completion of the repairs in August of 1995 the 
Port has leased about 80 percent (as of November 1995) of the space in Sheds B and D along 
the west side of the Pier for fish processing. (Sheds B and D are not part of the proposed 
project. Information on uses of these sheds is provided as background for water quality). 

The Port's overall objectives for Pier 45 are: 1) to accommodate the fish handling industry in 
modern, sanitary facilities; and 2) to provide for public and visitor uses complementary to the 
fishing industry and to the Fisherman's Wharf area. 



* Conversation with John Davey, Port Wharfinger, April, 1995. 

' Department of Fish and Game Statistics for Selected Species, San Francisco Bay Area Commercial Fish Landings 
1988-1993; the San Francisco Bay Area includes: San Francisco, Bodega Bay, Princeton, Oakland, and Sausalito. Data 
for Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45 show a decrease of 61% fisb landings between 1988 and 1993. 
^Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, memo dated May 23, 1995. 



2 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
A. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

A feasibility study on specific uses of Sheds A and C that would complement the development of 
the harbor area at Fisherman's Wharf was completed for the Port in 1994 using grant funding 
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N0AA)7 Building on a 1988 
feasibility study for Pier 45 by the California State Coastal Conservancy,® the 1994 Concept 
Development, Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for the Fisheries and Environmental 
Research Center, concluded that uses of Sheds A arxl C on Pier 45 need to satisfy the 
following objectives: 

• meet the needs of the commercial and recreational fishing Irxlustries 

• provide public access to the waterfront 

• complement the existing activities and uses within the Fisherman's Wharf area 

• preserve or enhance revenues accruing to the Port 

The 1994 study included extensive dialog with representatives from the fishing and seafood 
industries and Fisherman's Wharf retail area. It was recognized early in the study that industry- 
serving uses would not be financially self-supporting and that complementary uses would be 
necessary to generate revenue to support the overall development of the Pier. 

On the basis of the findings outlined above, the proposed project would improve Sheds A and C 
for a combination of commercial fishing industry and visitor/public uses. Existing parking on the 
forepier between the sheds and the Embarcadero (68 spaces) would be retained. The proposed 
Pier 45. project would include 200 parking spaces for Sheds A and C.^ The Port is considering 
three primary alternative uses for Sheds A and C: an Educational Center; a Conference Center; 
and a Fisheries Center. All uses would include outdoor public access, parking and retail space. 
The proposed alternatives are described in Section C of the Project Description, and in Section 
VII, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 



^ Concept Development, Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for tfie Fisheries and Environmental Research Center, 
By Sedway & Associates, with Coastal Resources Center and Kwan Henmi Architectural Planning, November, 1994. 
* Coastal Conservancy Study AB 45: Preliminary Feasibility - Commercial Fishing & Marine Environmental Research 
and Training Center, Pier 45 and Satellite Locations, December 1988. 

^ Parking on Pier 45 prior to the earthquake reti'ofit included 50 spaces in Shed A and C and 120 spaces in the valley 
between the Sheds. 



3 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



B. PROJECT LOCATION 

The proposed project is in tlie Fisherman's Wharf area of San Francisco's northern waterfront 
(see Figure 1, page 5). The project site is on Port property and is under the jurisdiction of the 
Port Commission of the City and County of San Francisco. The project site is also within the 
Coastal Zone and Special Area Plan for the San Francisco Waterfront under the jurisdiction of 
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 

The project site is bounded by a breakwater and the San Francisco Bay to the north, the San 
Francisco Maritime Park/Hyde Street Pier to the west, Jefferson Street to the south, and Taylor 
Street and Pier 45 to the east (see Figure 2, page 6 ). It is in a C-2 (Community Business) use 
district, and a 40-X height and bulk district, and in the Northern Waterfront Special Use District 
No. 1 , in which non-maritime uses require Conditional Use authorization from the City Planning 
Commission, and maritime-related uses are principal permitted uses requiring no special 
Planning Commission review. The site is within the Fisherman's Wharf Sub-area of the City of 
San Francisco's Master Plan and the Ports Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

EXISTING USES ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE 

Most of the Fisherman's Wharf area was originally a shallow cove of San Francisco Bay. The 
cove was incrementally filled in until completion of the Great Seawall in 1890. The first 
commercial activities in the area were by immigrant fishermen who made fishing an important 
industry in the City. The Wharf became the region's fishing industry center in the early 1900's. 
It is the fishing industry that gave Fisherman's Wharf its character and it remains a major 
attraction for the area's visitors and local residents. The area restaurants originated as 
extensions of the fishing industry, and many remain at the wharfs edge, overlooking the active 
and historic fishing fleet. 



4 




LOCATION MAP 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 



5 10 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



AQUATIC PARK 



LARKIN ST. 



HYDE ST 





NATIONAL PARK 



SERVICE SF MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK 
BREAKWATER 



DOLPHIN SWIM CLUB & 
SOLTTH-END ROWING CLUB 



HYDE ST 
PIER 



NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SF MARITIME 
NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK 



LEAVENWORTH ST. 



"W / Rockfill 



\ 



J10 Fuel Dock HARBOR 
JIO ruei uocK ^^^j^ g^^^^ 




lONES ST. 



TAYLOR ST. 



ru=[ 



50 100 200 400 



BOO leel 



EXISTING SITE PLAN 



FIGURE NO. 2 



SOURCE; PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 6 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 

A major portion of the Hyde Street Pier is leased by tine Port to the National Park Service (NPS) 
for the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. Five historic ships that belong to the Park 
Service are moored off both sides of the Hyde Street Pier. The east side of the Hyde Street Pier 
includes about 0.16 acre of rockfill and about 150 wooden piers supporting a 420 square foot 
fuel station and paved parking area for five vehicles. There are currently tv^o fuel dispensers (no 
pump-out, no restrooms, no convenience store). 

To the west of Hyde Street Pier is Aquatic Park, a public recreational swimming and rowing area 
of the Bay managed by and under jurisdiction of the National Park Service - Goldengate 
National Recreation Area. Aquatic Park has occupied this location since 1938. At the foot or 
landward end of the Hyde Street Pier and to the west of the Pier (502 Jefferson Street) are the 
private clubhouses used by the Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club and the South End Rowing 
Club. These clubs have existed since the late 1800's and their clubhouses have been located 
along the waters' edge at other locations until they were moved to the current location in 1 938. 
The clubhouses are on public park property under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco 
Recreation and Park Department, leased to the clubs for recreational use. 

While there are strictly only 1 1 6 existing berths and side-tie lease spaces located in both the 
Inner and Outer Lagoons, rafting of boats allows about 170 fishing boats in the Fisherman's 
Wharf Harbor. All berths and spaces are leased and used year-round. Additional fishing vessels 
regularly use the harbor, and raft up to Pier 45, Wharf J7 nearby, or moor in the harbor wherever 
space is available (see Figure 3). Throughout the year there are also varying numbers of 
transient vessels using the harbor. The herring season, which runs from November through 
March, is the busiest time of year for both fishermen and fish handlers at Fisherman's Wharf. 

Prior to the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, the primary use of Pier 45 was to provide space for 
fish handlers and parking for fishermen. Four sheds, which total approximately 270,000 square 
feet, are on the Pier. Sheds B and D (which are not part of the proposed project), totaling about 
130,000 square feet on the west side of the Pier, have been traditionally used for fish handling, 
circulation, and storage of fishing/boat gear. As a result of the 1989 earthquake damage, most 
tenants from Sheds B and D temporarily relocated to Fish Alley and to Piers 28, 33 and 54. 



7 



Figure 3 Rafting of Boats In Harbor 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 




II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 

The space allocation created after the earthquake repairs does not represent a substantial 
increase in any use from that which existed before the earthquake. There is no change in the 
exterior envelope or appearance of the sheds. The space in Sheds B and D devoted to various 
uses after the earthquake repairs is 113,900 square feet for fish handling and circulation, and 
18,720 square feet for storage, restrooms and utilities. 

Prior to the earthquake Sheds A and C, totaling about 140,000 square feet of floor space on the 
east side of the Pier, were partially vacant and contained a variety of facilities: support space for 
the Red and White ferry boat fleet and the submarine Pampanito, which is moored along the 
eastern edge of the Pier; office space for area merchants; parking for 50 vehicles; and a space 
where special public events, such as Festa Italiana, were held. The space between the sheds, 
the "valley," was used for truck access and parking for tenants of about 120 vehicles. Since the 
earthquake the "valley" has also been used for tour bus parking (up to 20 buses) and for movie 
production equipment. Existing parking on the forepier, or landward side of the sheds (about 68 
spaces), is also used by tenants in the area. Public access is along the aprons on the east and 
west of the sheds on Pier 45. 

The Port has completed the repairs of the earthquake damaged portions of Pier 45 at a cost of 
approximately $1 1 .6 million, largely funded with a grant from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) and other state and federal sources. Construction started in 
1991 to demolish interior partitions and structures, repair and replace damaged utilities and floor 
slabs, repair the seawall, replace supporting piles and stabilize soils and fill areas under the Pier, 
add restrooms, add floor drains, floor sinks, and solids separators, and add a stormwater oil and 
water separator in the valley area between the sheds for storm water runoff. Seismic repair of 
Pier 45, was completed by August, 1995. The fish processing uses have returned to Sheds B 
and D with about 80 percent of the sheds leased as of November 1995." 

At the turn of the last century, San Francisco handled more fresh fish than all other West Coast 
ports combined. Today, it has the largest concentration of fish distributors and brokers on the 



'"Department of City Planning, Planning Department File 88643E, note to file, October 26, 1990. 

' ' The Department of City Planning, Office of Environmental Review, issued an emergency Statutory Exemption (CEOA 

Guidelines Section 15260-15277) in November of 1989 for the repairs of earthquake damage at Pier 45. 

'^FEMA Project, Pier 45, Plans, December 1993. 

'^Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, memo dated November 6, 1995. 



9 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 

west coast and remains the region's handling and distribution center. As shown in Table 1 San 
Francisco Bay Area fish landings have declined between 1988 and 1993 from 51.5 million 
pounds to about 30.3 million pounds. Table 2 shows that about 3.1 million pounds of fish were 
landed in 1993 (brought to the Harbor and off-loaded to the Pier by boats) at Fisherman's 
Wharf/Pier 45, with more brought in overland from other ports to process and trade.^* This Is a 
decline of about 60% compared to 1988. The 1994 update of Table 1 for the San Francisco Bay 
Area commercial fish landings shows a further decline in total pounds landed of 28,292,500. 

For at least a decade, during the early morning hours (approximately 3:30 AM to 7 AM), 
Jefferson Street in front of Pier 45 has been the site of fish distribution and trading from trucks. 
An average of ten to twelve trucks were observed along Jefferson Street during the early 
morning trading activities in January of 1995 (see Figure 4). The Port proposes to move this 
activity to the central "valley" on Pier 45 where truck movement and parking would have less 
impact on street circulation. Use of the parking triangle adjacent to Pier 45 will also be 
encouraged for this early morning truck activity. 

Fish Alley and Wharf J7 are located north of Jefferson Street on the waterside and between Pier 
45 and the Hyde Street Pier. Fish Alley extends along Seawall Lots 302 and 303 between Jones 
and Hyde Streets and contains fish landing and handling facilities, storage areas for various 
types of gear, and fuel tanks that serve the fuel dock, (see map on page 6). Two existing fuel 
tanks were removed in January 1995 and replaced with two new 20,000-gallon tanks at 460 
Jefferson Street. There are also retail and art gallery uses, limited parking, and restaurants along 
Jefferson Street. 



California Department of Fish and Game, Statistics for Selected Species, 1995. 



10 



CO 



0) 

o 

0) 
Q. 
CO 

t) 

Q) 
0) 

cn 



< Q) 
_l 

X 

^ O 

1 

<i 

iS 
LU CO 

^ E 

O O 

< o6 
LU 

a: 

< u- 

< ° 

LL 0) 

CO Q 



to 




c 
c 



E 



11 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



TABLE 2: Fish Landing Volumes at Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45 and Selected Northern 
California Ports, 1988 and 1993 



PORT 

San Francisco* 

Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45*** 
Bodega Bay 
Princeton 



FISH LANDINGS (Pounds) 
1988 1993 



21,843,900 
7,927,565 

14,911,600 
5,686,840 



10,501.700** 
3,088,738 
7,974.380 
6.534.240 



Change 

-51.9% 
-61.0% 
-46.5% 
+ 14.9% 



* includes: Fisherman's Wharf 

** 1994 San Francisco landings total 7,421,550 



* Landings Receivers: No End Fish Co., Larocca Seafood, Morgan Fish Co., Golden Seas 
Fisheries, Meatball Bait Distributor, ICM. 

Source: EJL & Associates, from California Department of Fish & Game, June 24, 1995. 



12 



Figure 4 Jefferson St. Truck Trading Activity 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 





Fisherman's Wharf Hyde Street Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C 



13 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



C. PROPOSED PROJECT 

The proposed project has three major components (see Figure 5): 

1) Hyde Street Fishing Harbor; 

2) Harbor Sen^ice Facilities; and 

3) Pier 45 / New Uses in Sheds A and C. 

HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor component of the proposed project would include 
reconstruction of the east side of Hyde Street Pier and construction of a new Hyde Street 
Fishing Harbor with space for 60 boats (see Figure 6). The proposed 60 berth harbor would 
increase the boat lease space in the harbor area to a total of 176 boats (116 spaces exist in the 
inner and outer harbor). Some fill, as well as dredging and pile driving, would be necessary to 
create the floating berths and supporting facilities. Permits and approvals required for dredging, 
pile driving and placement of fill are outlined below. 

Reconstruction of the east side of Hyde Street Pier would include the removal and relocation of 
the existing rock fill and replacement of the existing timber pier structure with concrete piles. 
Approximately 22,723 square feet of fill/cover in the Bay and about 9,475 square feet of fill on 
the shoreline would result from reconstruction of the Pier and new berths, (as shown in Table 3, 
below). 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor berthing system would be constructed to the west of Pier 45, to 
the east of the Hyde Street Pier and San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park (National 
Maritime Park). The new berthing system would consist of 40 permanent floating berths with 
separating floats (about 17,700 square feet of floating dock) supported by a concrete guide pile 
berthing system, with 53 new 24-inch square concrete piles. The dock would be designed to 
accommodate ten oversized vessels tied at their stern to the dock, (without separating floats) 
and approximately ten oversized vessels side-tied to the dock (see Figure 6). First priority for 
leases would be given to commercial fishing vessels in accordance with Port of San Francisco 
Tariff No. 3-C, Section 8-Fishing Industry. 



14 



BREAKWATER 




PROJECT COMPONENTS FIGURE NO. 5 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 1 5 

SCALE 50 too 300 «00l 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 




16 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



TABLE 3: BAY AND SHOREUNE BAND FILL BY BCDC CRITERIA 



60 Boat 

Description Proposed Project 

Berthing 

Roats (SF) of coverage 1 7,700 

Piles Supporting Roating Dock (CY) 270 

Pier (in the Bay) 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 4,875 

Pile- Supported Fill Removed (SF) (1,420) 

New Pier (in the Shoreline Band) 

Coverage, Solid Fill (SF) 7,150 

(CY) 715 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 2.325 

Pile-Supported Fill Removed (SF) (760) 

TOTALS* 

Coverage/Fill of the Bay (SF) 22.723 

Supported by Piles (CY) 270 

Coverage/Fill in the Shoreline Band (SF) 9.475 

Solid Fill (CY) 715 



* Does not include Fill removed of 2,180 SF 

SF Square Foot of fill 
CY Cubic Yards of fill 



17 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 

The Hyde Street Pier reconstruction including the removal and relocation of existing rockfill, and 
replacement of existing wood pier structure with concrete piles, the walkways, and the floating 
docks are considered Bay fill/cover by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission 
(BCDC) regulations (see Table 3 above). 

The proposed Hyde Street Fishing Hart>or would include the following features: 

• Berths for two boats would be enclosed on two sides by floats with encased foam pontoons 
that would ride slightly below the surface of the water. Double-boat berths would be 40 X 
17 feet, 50 X 19 feet and 60 X 21 feet. Connecting walkways would be 4 feet wide. 

• No berthing would be provided on the west side of the float closest to the Hyde Street Pier 
and Aquatic Park. 

• The westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible "skirt" which would eliminate gaps 
between floats and provide a measure of water quality protection. (See Figure 7) 

• A single security gate at the brow (shore end of the pier) would limit access to berth holders 
and harbor personnel. 

• The berthing system would include lighting, electrical power, water and fire protection 
systems, and dock boxes for each berth. 

• Impermeable surfaces would be designed to collect runoff in gutters located along the pier 
edge or in a central depression, to direct storm water to an oil-water separator before 
disposal to the Bay. 



18 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



FLOAT DECK 




'THRU' BOLT (TYP.) 



® 



® A ® 



® 



® ® 



® A ® 



TIMBER WALERS 



7 



WATER 
SURFACE 



-CONCRETE PONTOON 



i 



i 



3" MAX.t 

(TYP.) 

4" GAP 



(TYP.) 



SUSPENDED RUBBER CYLINDRICAL 
DOCK FENDER TO FILL GAP (TYP.) 



FLOAT ELEVATION (sk:vi^;ier float o\.v) 

SCALE: 3/4" = I'-O" 



'THRU' BOLT (TYP.) 

4'-0" 



float deck 




SUSPENDED RUBBER CYLiNDRlCAL 
DOCK FENDER TO FILL GAP (TYP.) 

FLOAT SECTION 

SCALE: 3/4" = l"-0" 



CROSS SECTION OF 
FLOATING DOCK 

FIGURE NO. 7 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 19 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



HARBOR SERVICE FACILITIES 

Proposed new Harbor Service Facilities would be located partially on new fill, described above 
under Hyde Street Pier Reconstruction. Facilities would include a work dock, vessel pump-out 
station, and restroom. The Harbor Master would remain in the recently refurbished space on 
Wharf J9, along Fish AJIey. Public access for the harbor component of the project would be 
provided as shown on Figure 6. 

• The existing fuel station building of 420 square feet, now located on a pile-supported pier, 
would be retained. 

• A restroom of about 200 square feet would be provided near the fueling area for use by 
fishermen. 

• The existing fuel dock area of 1 ,450 square feet would be provided with lighting and spill 
containment equipment. 

• A new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline (about 140 feet long) from the seawall to the fuel 
dock would include automatic shut off features; a leak detection system; remote operated 
shutoff switch and pressure sensitive valves. 

• A single security gate at the end of the pier would limit access to the dock and floating 
berths to permitted boat operators and harbor personnel. 

• A vessel sewage pump-out station would be installed adjacent to the fuel dock area with a 
20 gallon per minute (gpm) pump-out capability directly connected to the City's sanitary 
sewer system. 

• An 40 square foot oily waste disposal facility would be provided in a clearly marked location 
in the working area and at an existing facility along Fish Alley. 

• The dock area would have a central depression to direct storm water to an oil-water 
separator prior to disposal to the Bay. (See Figure 6) 



20 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 

• Parking for 21 vehicles (including five existing spaces which would be retained) is proposed 
over existing land and/or over relocated fill for use by fishermen. Additionally, 24 parking 
spaces would be provided in the location of the Bell Smoked Fish building at the backside 
of the building at 490 Jefferson. About 4,300 square feet of building structure would be 
demolished to make room for parking. 

• Public access (3,000 square feet) would be provided at the foot of the new pier. The new 
berths would only be accessitsie to berth users. 

PIER 45 / NEW USES IN SHEDS A AND C 

The Port is proposing to develop uses complementary to the fishing industry on Pier 45 in 
Sheds A and C. Together these sheds contain approximately 140,000 square feet of ground 
floor area and space for a mezzanine of 50,000 square feet. They are adjacent to Sheds B and 
D which are renovated and leased for fish processing and fish handling. The existing uses of 
Sheds B and D would not change under the proposed project. 

The Port is considering three alternative uses within Sheds A and C which range from 140,000 to 
190,000 square feet (the latter includes development of a 50,000 square foot mezzanine area) of 
uses. The three alternative uses would each emphasize one of the following: a Fisheries Center; 
an Education Center or; a Conference Center. All three alternatives would include outdoor 
public access and parking, and some retail space. 

The Ports preferred project for Sheds A and C is the Fisheries Center. (The other two use 
alternatives for Pier 45 being considered by the Port are described and evaluated in Section VII. 
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT). The Port has described a range of maximum 
intensity uses for the Sheds tfiat would not be exceeded but development could occur at a 
lower intensity (some space may not be developed). 

The purpose of the proposed Fisheries Center would be to educate the public about the fishing 
industry, allow observation of a working commercial fishing harbor and pier, and provide 
interpretation of the surrounding Bay and ocean environment. The Fisheries Center would 
include 25,000 square feet of Visitor Center Space, 20,000 square feet of Conference Space, 

21 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 

50,000 square feet of parking, 40,000 square feet of retail sfjace, 10,000 square feet of office 
space and 45,000 square feet of outdoor public access space (see Figure 8). Improvements 
include restrooms, new partitions, plumbing and electrical systems. Following are descriptions 
of the Port* s proposed Fisheries Center components: 

Visitor Center - about 25,000 square feet of space in Shed C would be dedicated to displays 
and exhibits to promote public education of the fisheries and seafood industries and the marine 
environment, that could include a 1,200 to 3,000 square foot interactive theater; 2,000 to 5,000 
square feet of related retail space (gift shop and book store); a 2,000 to 4,000 square foot cafe 
or food service area. 

Conference Center - about 20,000 square feet of Shed C would be used as a meeting place for 
conferences and special events. The facility may be cross marketed with the area's hotels since 
the conference space would be larger than what is available in the area. The conference center 
would include a catering kitchen. 

Retail Space - about 40,000 square feet of Shed A would be used for retail. Proposed types of 
retail could include combined gallery and workshop space for local artisans, a theater, a 
bookstore, a coffee bar, a market hall featuring fresh foods and seafood products, fishing tackle 
sales and repairs, and recreational uses. 

Office Space - 10,000 square feet of mezzanine space in Shed C would be created for maritime 
related users such as fish brokers, and a fisheries data center. 

Outdoor Public Access - 20,000 square feet of Shed A and 25,000 square feet of Shed Cs pier 
apron would be used as a public promenade along the water's edge of Pier 45. 

Parking - - 200 parking spaces - Of the 200 spaces there would be 100 in Shed A of which 35 
would be valet or tandem spaces and 100 in Shed C of which 15 would be valet or tandom 
spaces. The existing 68 spaces on the forepier would remain. These are permit spaces for 
lease tenants. 



22 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 

Truck loading area One service bay would be located in both Sheds A and C within the valley 
area. No parking would be provided in the valley for Sheds A and C to nninimize conflicts with 
the fish processors' trucks using the valley. 



23 




24 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 



D. PROJECT APPROVALS, SCHEDULE AND COSTS 

The project site is on Port property and is under the jurisdiction of the City and County of San 
Francisco. After completion of the environmental review process, the project would be 
considered by the Port for approval. The Port Commission will be responsible for approving or 
not approving the proposed project and obtaining all necessary permits and authorizations. 

The Draft EIR will be distributed to all city, regional and state agencies and to the interested 
public for their review and comment. A public hearing before the City Planning Commission will 
be held on this Draft EIR and responses to all written and oral comments will be prepared. The 
EIR will be revised accordingly and presented to the City Planning Commission for certification. 
All city, regional and state agencies must review and consider the information contained in the 
Final EIR before making any decision to approve or permit the project. 

In addition to Port Commission approval, various other city, state and federal agency actions 
and approvals would be required. The project site is within the Coastal Zone and is under the 
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The land 
underlying the harbor and piers is on state-owned tide and submerged lands under the 
jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission. In 1968 the state of California transferred the 
administration management and operation of Port property to the San Francisco Port Authority. 
While no permit would be required from the State Lands Commission the project would be 
reviewed by them prior to Port Commission action. Portions of the project site, as described 
below, are also under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Required approvals by local, regional, state and federal agencies for implementation of the 
proposed project are summarized below. 



25 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
0. Project Approvals 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO APPROVALS 
City Planning Commission 

The Port, as the project sponsor, must seek Conditional Use Authorization from the City 
Planning Commission for the non-maritime uses that may be proposed for Sheds A and C on 
Pier 45. Under Section 152 of the City Planning Code, two freight loading spaces meeting 
minimum dimensions specified under Section 152, would be required. In addition, vehicle 
parking would be required under Section 151 of the City Planning Code. Vehicle spaces would 
be required, depending on the final mix of proposed uses. Two hundred spaces are proposed 
as part of the project. The Provisions of the Northern Waterfront Special Use District #1 would 
enable the Commission to modify the amount of required parking and loading spaces (see 
Section 240.1 and 161(f) of the San Francisco Planning Code). At the discretion of the City 
Planning Commission, any potential shortfall in loading or parking proposed for the project 
could be waived through conditional use authorization. 

On November 14, 1986, the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition M, the Accountable 
Planning Initiative. Proposition M establishes eight Priority Policies. These policies are: 
preservation and enhancement of neighborhood-serving retail uses; protection of neighborhood 
character; preservation and enhancement of affordable housing; discouragement of commuter 
automobiles, protection of industrial and service land uses from commercial office development 
and enhancement of resident employment and business ownership; earthquake preparedness; 
landmark and historic building preservation; and protection of open space. Prior to issuing a 
permit for any project which requires an Initial Study under CEQA, and prior to adopting any 
zoning ordinance or development agreement, the City is required to find that the proposed 
project or legislation is consistent with the Priority Policies. 

In November 1990, the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition H. This voter initiative 
mandates that a plan for the waterfront be developed and that uses of the waterfront be 
restricted to water oriented uses. The mandated Waterfront Land Use Plan is under 
development by the Port. The Port Commission would consider requirements of Proposition H 
and the draft Waterfront Land Use Plan in reviewing the proposed project. 



26 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

The project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Department of City Planning in the 
context of applicable objectives and policies of the San Francisco Master Plan as part of 
considering a Conditional Use Authorization, if one is required by a proposal to include non- 
maritime uses. The Planning Commission nnay also determine an appropriate reduction in off- 
street parking requirements. The Northeastern Waterfront Plan, adopted in 1977 and last 
amended in 1995 as an Element of the San Francisco Master Plan, addresses land use at the 
project site and includes a Fisherman's Wharf Subarea Plan. The Plan's objectives and policies 
are designed to enhance economic vitality of the area, diversify land uses in the Northeastern 
Waterfront area while enhancing maritime and port activities, improve the area's attractiveness 
and spatial identity, and improve transportation and circulation in the area. 

The overall goals of the Fisherman's Wharf Subarea Plan are to maintain and enhance the area's 
maritime character and enhance it as a center for commercial fishing; strengthen the area's 
attractiveness as a water-oriented commercial recreation center; and develop uses that would 
generate activities at times other than the existing peak period. Objective 11 is to "maintain and 
enhance the character of the Fisherman's Wharf area and enhance the area as a center for the 
commercial fishing industry." Policy 1 is to "encourage the retention and expansion of the 
commercial fishing and fish handling industry and businesses which provide services to the 
fishing fleet through construction of a new breakwater in the general area of Hyde Street Pier." 
As noted above, the referenced breakwater has been completed. The additional fishing facilities 
proposed under the project appear to respond to this policy of the Northeastern Waterfront Plan. 
However, Policy 2 of this objective states "Permit commercial office (not related to the fishing 
industry), hotel and residential convenience retail, institutional and accessory parking uses on 
Pier 45. Parking shall be enclosed within a structure". The uses proposed by the Port would 
preclude these uses and a Master Plan Amendment would be required if the proposed project is 
to be approved. 

Port Commission 

The Port Commission must approve the proposed project, and expenditure of funds to build, 
before the project could be implemented. Lease agreements for uses that might be developed 
would also require Port Commission approval; any lease that would exceed the amount of $1 
million per year would also require approval by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 



27 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

The Port Commission is responsible for implementing proposed mitigation measures attacfied to 
the project. 

Art Commission 

Review of the proposed project would be required from the San Francisco Art Commission, 
which reviews proposed construction on public larxJ. 

Other City Departments 

The Port of San Francisco is empowered to authorize all structural, building, electrical, utility, fire 
and police permits. The Department of Public Health (DPH) regulates removal of underground 
storage tanks and disposal of hazardous wastes. DPH would review site history and soils 
reports for hazardous wastes prior to issuance of a building permit for site excavation work and 
fuel pipeline installation pursuant to Article 20 of the Public Works Code. 

REGIONAL AND STATE AGENCY APPROVALS 

Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 

The entire project site is within the Coastal Zone jurisdiction of BCDC, and a permit from BCDC 
would be required before the project could be implemented. The permit would address the 
projects compliance with the McAteer-Petris Act and with policies of the San Francisco 
Waterfront, Special Area Plan (April 1975 as amended) Plan Map #t, which covers the area of 
shoreline in which the project is located. 

BCDC would be particularly concerned with issues relating to the addition of solid fill and pile- 
supported fill in the Bay; potential impacts on fish and wildlife and other natural resources; the 
provision of Bay-oriented commercial recreation or Bay-oriented public assembly; and the 
provision of public access to the Bay at Pier 45. Also, BCDC would inform the Port about 
project compliance with Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1 972. 



28 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 



The Port of San Francisco currently holds the following permits from BCDC for projects at Pier 
45: 

• Permit No M76-69, authorizing the construction of a chapel and the placement of a 
Fisherman's Memorial with public access on Wharf J-3. 

• Permit No. M88-63, authorizing the placement of a temporary wharfinger's office (trailer) 
on Wharf J-3, until such time as a permanent office Is constructed on the Pier. 

• Permit No. M89-94, authorizing earthquake repairs to Pier 45, including the areas 
beneath Sheds A, B and C. 

The authorized earthquake repairs were completed in August of 1995, as previously described. 
The wharfinger's office was permanently located in a two-story building on Wharf J-7 along Fish 
Alley. 

Prior to issuing a permit for the proposed project, BCDC will review: the amount of Bay fill that 
would result; the extent to which the project provides "maximum feasible public access" to and 
along the shoreline; enhancement of fishing industry uses; and provisions for public safety. 

BCDC jurisdiction includes Bay waters up to the shoreline and the line 1 00 feet upland and 
parallel to the shoreline which defines the Commissions "shoreline band." The April 1975 San 
Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan specifies uses for which fill may be permitted, including 
port facilities, water-related recreation. Bay-oriented commercial recreation and Bay-oriented 
public assembly. Limited commercial recreation facilities, such as small restaurants, can be 
permitted. The 1975 Plan also includes specific policies for uses on new or replacement fill in 
the Fisherman's Wharf area. Appropriate uses for new or replacement fill include public access; 
fish processing; limited commercial recreation; and maritime and small-boat docking facilities, 
including tour boats and ferries. 

Permitted uses on new or replacement fill at Hyde Street Pier include fish processing, limited 
commercial recreation, public access, replacement of existing bay-oriented commercial 



29 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

recreation, and maritime. The San Francisco Waterfront Plan. Special Area Plan (1975) Hyde 
Street Pier Policy 1 states: 



"1. The reconstruction or improvement of the east side of Hyde Street Pier for 
fishing and fish processing should be permitted. It need not be rebuilt to its 
present configuration, but any new fill should be the minimum necessary, (page 
15)- 



Permitted uses on new or replacement fill at Pier 45 include public access, tx)at slips and 
maritime. Special Area Plan Policies 2 and 3 for Pier 45 state: 



"2. Development of Pier 45 should provide maximum public access at pier level. 

The public access should be an integral part of the pier development and should 
create varied and interesting open spaces for public access, including visual 
access, to the Bay, particularly at the end of the pier and along pier edges. 



3. All areas devoted to public access on Pier 45 should be protected from the wind 
to the maximum extent feasible without unnecessarily blocking views, (page 17)" 



Special Area Plan policies for Pier 45 also state that If reuse of Pier 45 requires new pilings to 
be driven into the water, uses over the pilings would have to be water-oriented. Proposed uses 
for Pier 45 under the project may not be consistent with BCDC Special Area Plan policies if 
public access provisions do not meet the above criteria or if uses over new pilings (driven during 
earthquake repairs) are determined to be non-water-oriented. Section 66605 of the McAteer- 
Petris Act provides that "further filling of San Francisco Bay should be authorized only when 
public benefits from fill dearly exceed public detriment from the loss of the water areas and 
should be limited to water-oriented uses." 



Calrfomia State Lands Commission 



In 1968, the State of California, in accordance with the Burton Act and the accompanying 
Transfer Agreement, transferred the administration, management and operation of Port properly 
to the San Francisco Port Commission. The Px)rt Commission holds these lands in trust under 

30 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

the jurisdiction of the State l_ands Commission, which detemiines that the use of Port lands 
meets public trust provisions. Uses of these lands are limited to watertx)rne commerce, 
navigation, fisheries, open space, recreation, or other recognized public trust purposes. No 
permit would be issued by the State Lands Commission for the proposed project; however, the 
Port Commission must keep State Lands Comission apprised of its plans, particularly regarding 
uses proposed for Sheds A and C on Pier 45. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

The RWQCB is responsible for development, enforcement and implementation of state water 
quality standards as set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin 
(known as the Basin Plan). The RWQCB would therefore be concerned with the potential 
changes in the water quality to San Francisco Bay resulting from the proposed project. Under 
powers delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources 
Control Board, the RWQCB would also provide water quality certification for disposal of project- 
related dredge spoils. 

California Department of Boating and Waterways 

The California Department of Boating and Waterways would not issue any permits for the 
proposed project. It would review and comment on proposed design and operation in terms of 
consistency with State Harbor Standards. It is providing major funding for the Harbor's 
development. 

FEDERAL AGENCY APPROVALS 
U.S. Army Corps of Encineers 

Prior to project implementation, a permit would be required from The Army Corps of Engineers 
for proposed dredging, filling and new structures in navigable waterways. The Army Corps of 
Engineers has jurisdiction over fill, dredging and disposal of dredge spoils under Section 10 of 
the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Oean Water Act. All proposed work and/or 
structures extending bayward of the line on shore reached by mean high water of tidal waters 
must be authorized by The Army Corps of Engineers under Section 10. 



31 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 



U.S. Coast Guard 

The U.S. Coast Guard's primary responsibility is to preserve and enhance the navigability and 
safety of navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard would not issue any permits 
for the project, but could review and comment on proposed design and operation of the harbor 
in terms of Its potential effect on navigation and safety in adjoining waten/vays. 



32 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 



A. LAND USE, ZONING AND PLANS 

As described below, and at the beginning of Section IV, Land Use and Zoning were annong the 
issues determined as a result of the Initial Study to require no further discussion in this 
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The infornnation on land use and zoning in this subsection 
is included to orient the reader to land use in the project vicinity. The proposed project would 
require an amendment to the Master Plan. This amendment, and compatibility with existing 
plans and policies is discussed below. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL SETTING 

The site of the proposed project is on San Francisco's northern waterfront within the 
Fisherman's Wharf area. This area encompasses approximately 374 acres of land and water 
generally bounded by Pier 35 on the east; Aquatic Park on the west; the Pier Head Line in San 
Francisco Bay on the north; and North Point, Bay and Francisco Streets on the south. About 
175 acres of the Fisherman's Wharf area are land (including piers) and the rest are water. A 
majority of the land area is under City Planning or Port of San Francisco jurisdiction, and 
roughly 10 percent is under U.S. National Park Sen/ice jurisdiction. Water areas within the 
Fisherman's Wharf area are under Port and U.S. National Park Service jurisdictions. 

Historically, the Fisherman's Wharf area was a center of fishing- and maritime-related industries 
such as boat repair, maritime equipment supply, and fish processing and canning. Although 
much of its development since the mkj-1960s has been tourist-sen/ing, Fisherman's Wharf still 
has the largest concentration of fish distributors and brokers on the west coast and is the center 
of the San Francisco Bay Area's fishing industry. Within the San Francisco Bay region. 
Fisherman's Wharf is advantageously located for the fishing industry due to its proximity to the 
Sacramento River Delta, the Pacific ocean via the Golden Gate, and major regional seafood 
markets.' 



' Fisheiman's Wharf Harbor Feasibility Study, Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, et al, June l, 1988. 

33 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

Fisherman's Wharf Area Uses Under Port Jurisdiction 

The portion of the Fisherman's Wharf area under Port jurisdiction includes piers, shoreline, 
waterfront extending bayward to the U.S. Pier Head Line, the underground seawall along the 
Embarcadero Roadway, and seawall lots adjoining the Embarcadero. The Port jurisdiction area 
includes a mix of commercial maritime, fishing-related and tourist-sen/ing retail and restaurant 
uses. At Pier 39, a specialty retail/restaurant complex developed in the late 1970's, is a marina 
with 350 berths for recreational boats. The Pier 39 nnarina, within a mile of the project site, has 
two vessel pump-out stations and a boat that provides pump-out services to vessels in the 
harbor. Ten live-aboards are allowed to berth at the Pier 39 marina. 

In addition to Pier 39, several other concentrations of tourist-serving commercial development 
are in the portion of the Fisherman's Wharf area under Port jurisdiction. These are at the north - 
end of Taylor Street and along the north side of Jefferson Street west of Mason Street, adjacent 
to the project site. Other prominent activities on nearby Port properties include the Pier 39 
parking garage, surface parking on the Triangle area adjacent to Pier 45 and on Piers 43 and 43- 
1 /2, and tourist-serving ferry facilities along the waterfront between Pier 41 and 45. On Pier 43, 
adjacent on the east to Pier 45, is the Red and White Fleet tourist boat berth. 

Fisherman's Wharf Area Uses Under U.S. National Park Sen/ice and San Francisco Recreation 
and Park Department Jurisdiction 

Areas adjacent to the project site to the west are under San Francisco Recreation and Park 
Department and National Park Service jurisdiction. Principle uses include: 

• San Francisco National Maritime Historical Pari< on Hyde Street Pier, leased by the U.S. 
National Park Service from the Port of San Francisco and used to moor historic ships 
and boats; 

• Aquatic Park, a 10.7-acre public swimming and recreation area under the jurisdiction of 
the U.S. National Park Sen/ice; 

• Municipal Pier, a public fishing spot under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Park 
Service; 

34 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

• San Francisco Senior Center and the Maritime Museum, housed in the former Aquatic 
Park Bathhouse under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Park Sen/ice; and 

• The private Dolphin and South End Swimming and Rowing Clubs, adjacent to Aquatic 
Park and Hyde Street Pier (these Clubhouses are under jurisdiction of the San Francisco 
Recreation and Park Department on land zoned P • Public Use). 

Fisherman's Wharf Area Uses Under City Planning Jurisdiction 

In the area under City Planning jurisdiction which surrounds the project site, principal land uses 
are hotels, specialty retail/restaurant complexes, food service, and entertainment establishments. 
Commercial developments in the Fisherman's Wharf area include hotels. North Point Shopping 
Center, Cost Plus Imports retail store, and three specialty retail/restaurant complexes (Ghirardelli 
Square, the Cannery and the Anchorage). Residential and public infrastructure uses include the 
514-unit North Point Apartments, the 229-unit North Beach Place public housing project, the San 
Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) Kirkland Bus Yard, and the North Point Water Pollution 
Control Plant (see Figure 9). 

EXISTING PROJECT SITE USES 

Within the larger Fisherman's Wharf area, the project site is bounded by a breakwater and the 
San Francisco Bay to the north, the San Francisco Maritime Park-Hyde Street Pier and Aquatic 
Park to the west, Jefferson Street to the south, and Taylor Street to the east (see Figure 2, 
Section II, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, page 35). 



35 




f {•■:':;: .•;•:■ ■' j Reail^Commercial: Restaurant & Entenammem 

P:.':.:-'X^ Hotel/Motel 
OHk» 

Mamime/lndusinai 
Residantiaj 




i PutJiic/Ouasi-public Use 
Open Space 
Partung 

Vacant Building 
Vacant Loi 
Under Consmjcaon 



GENERALIZED LAND USE 
IN PROJECT AREA 



FIGURE NO. 3 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

Project Site Fishing and Maritime/Industrial Uses 

Although fishing-related activities and other distribution, transportation, and industrial uses have 
declined in the Fisherman's Wharf area, what remains of these uses is concentrated in the area 
known as the Working Wharf: Piers 45, 47 and 49, Fish Alley (Seawall Lots 302 and 303), and 
the adjacent water and berthing space. The Working Wharf is a fish distribution center for the 
San Francisco Bay Area and source of seafood for Wharf area restaurants and sidewalk crab 
stands. Current types and levels of fishing-related activities are described in more detail in the 
PROJECT DESCRIPTION; as noted, about three million pounds of fish were landed at the Wharf 
in 1993. Fish are also brought in by truck overland from the airport and from other ports to 
process and trade. Some of this trading currently takes place during the early morning hours 
from trucks parking along Jefferson Street near Fish Alley. This truck trading activity may 
relocate to the "valley" area on Pier 45 and to the parking triangle adjacent to Pier 45. Fish Alley 
comprises a dense assortment of fishing industry-related uses as well as the abandoned Bell 
Smoked Fish building (approximately 4,300 square feet). The Bell Smoked Fish building would 
be demolished and replaced by surface parking for fishermen under the proposed project. 

Prior to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, as described in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION, uses in 
and adjacent to the four Pier 45 sheds included both fishing-related and other uses. Sheds B 
and D were used primarily for fish processing and handling, and parking for fishermen; these 
uses were displaced because of earthquake damage and are returning to the repaired and 
upgraded sheds. No additional changes to Sheds B and D are proposed as part of the project. 

In addition to fish processing and distribution activities, the Fisherman's Wharf area contains 
harbor service facilities needed to support working fishing vessels. Proposed for expansion and 
improvement as part of the project, these facilities include docks and vessel berthing space, ice. 
fuel and other supplies, and waste disposal facilities. 

Other Project Site Uses 

In addition to fishing-related uses, the Working Wharf area contains a mix of other uses such as 
tourist-serving retail, restaurant and entertainment; office; recreation, open space and public 



37 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

access; and transportation and parking. The tourist-serving uses within the project site are 
concentrated along Jefferson Street, but restaurant uses also are on Pier 47, which separates 
the Inner and Outer Lagoons. 

Sheds A and C, totaling about 140,000 square feet on the ground floor (plus about 50,000 
square feet of potential mezzaine space) on the east side of Pier 45, were partially vacant and 
contained a mixture of uses prior to the 1989 earthquake. These uses included support space 
for ferries and other vessels, office space for area merchants, space for special events, and 
vehicle parking. The "valley" between sheds A/C and B/D, and the space landward of the 
sheds, are also used for vehicle access and (parking. 

SAN FRANCISCO ZONING AND PLANS 

The City Planning Code, which incorporates by reference the City's Zoning Maps, governs 
permitted uses, densities and the configuration of buildings within San Francisco. Permits to 
construct new buildings (or to alter or demolish existing ones) may not be issued unless either 
the proposed action conforms to the Planning Code, or an exception is granted pursuant to 
provisions of the Code. Entitlements, such as conditional use authorizations, are the province of 
the City Planning Commission. On Port property, building permits are issued by the Port. 

The project site is in a C-2 (Community Business) use district and a 40-X height and bulk district, 
and Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 1. In a C-2 district, professional and business 
offices, retail business and personal services, residential and hotel uses are permitted as 
principal uses. The 40-X height and bulk district, which controls San Francisco's entire Northern 
Waterfront area, allows a maximum height for buildings of 40 feet abowe the street, and does not 
limit building bulk. The proposed project would not conflict with any C-2 or 40-X district 
regulations. 

Provisions of the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 1, described in Section 240.1 of 
the City Planning Code, supersede those of the C-2 District. The purpose of the Special Use 
District is to address the waterfronts special uses, traffic, and parking issues, and to protect its 



38 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

distinct maritime character from adverse adjacent development. The applicable provisions of 
Section 240.1 state that conditional use authorization from the City Planning Commission Is 
required for allowable uses other than Vaterbome commerce and navigation, and industrial, 
commercial and other operations directly related to the conduct of waterborne commerce or 
navigation." The project would therefore require conditional use authorization if non-maritime- 
related uses (meeting facilities, retail, food service) are included. The project would also require 
an amendment to the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the Master Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco which designates hotel, commercial office and residential uses on Pier 
45. 

Formal consideration by the Port Commission of any of the alternative uses proposed for Pier 45 
Sheds A and C (Education Center, Conference Center or Fisheries Center), could require 
Planning Commission review to determine if the proposed uses can be considered maritime- 
related and if not, whether conditional use authorization should be granted. If commercial or 
retail uses were included, off-street loading and parking spaces in accordance with C-2 district 
regulations would apply. In making its determination, the Planning Commission would also take 
into consideration the directives of Proposition H, as passed by City voters in November, 1990. 
This voter initiative mandates that a plan for the waterfront be developed and that uses of the 
waterfront be restricted to water-oriented uses until such time as the plan is approved. 



CURRENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY 
Underwater World Aquarium at Pier 39 

The Underwater World Aquarium at Pier 39 has been under construction since 1990 and is 
scheduled for completion in 1996. The 48.200 square foot facility includes a public lobby and 
circulation space, a book shop, office and staff space, exhibit area, a large (9,500 gsf) tank, a 
tidal pool, tank service area and ancillary space. The project also includes expansion of the 
existing Pier 39 parking garage by 120 spaces and has caused 400 spaces of the AMPCO 
parking garage to be opened for public use on weekends. 



39 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

Port of San Francisco (Draft) Waterfront Land Use Plan 

The project site is within the Fisherman's Wharf Subarea of the Porf s Waterfront Land Use Plan 
Area. Not yet adopted, this plan proposes a variety of uses on selected 'opportunity sites' in 
the plan area. Figure 10 shows the generalized land uses in the Fishernnan's Wharf subarea. 
The Proposed Land Use Plan would amend Policy 2 (Objective 1 1 ) which specifies uses for 
Hyde Street Pier and Fish Alley, to permit other maritime and non-maritime adaptive uses of Fish 
Alley facilities if there is insufficient fishing industry demand and would also create a new policy 
to address Pier 45 separately from Hyde Street Pier and Fish Alley. The new policy would revise 
the list of land uses encouraged for this facility to instead give priority to fishing industry uses in 
Sheds B and D of Pier 45, and permit maritime offices; retail, research, educational assembly 
and entertainment and institutional uses; p)arking; and visitor centers compatible with the fishing 
industry in Sheds A and C. Environmental review of the Waterfront Land Use Plan will include a 
general discussion of potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 
45 project. 



40 




41 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



B. WATER QUALITY 

This section summarizes portions of the Water Quality Study for Fisherman's Wharf Hyde Street 
Harbor & Pier 45^ which was prepared to address water quality conditions in the project area. 
This section describes the following: the water quality regulatory framework; the physical 
conditions affecting water quality; existing water quality conditions in the project area based on 
results of water quality sampling conducted in the project area in May 1995; a public health and 
marine biota evaluation of existing water quality; a statistical evaluation of the bacteriological 
water quality; and results of previous water quality samplings. 

WATER QUALITY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Regulatory standards for water quality in San Francisco Bay are established by the Water Quality 
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (known as the "Basin Plan"), which is developed 
and implemented by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay 
Region (RWQCB).^ The Basin Plan specifies beneficial uses of receiving waters, water quality 
objectives imposed to protect the designated beneficial uses, and strategies and schedules for 
achieving water quality objectives. It includes narrative and numerical objectives designed to 
provide protection for all designated and potential beneficial uses in San Francisco Bay. The 
RWQCB is also responsible for permitting waste discharges and implementing monitoring 
programs for pollutant effects. For example, as required by the RWQCB, the Port has in place a 
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices plan for its facilities and it 
includes tenants such as the fish processors on Pier 45. 

In 1993, the RWQCB initiated a Regional Monitoring Program for the San Francisco Estuary, 



' Orion Environmental Associates, et. al.. 1996. Water Quality Study for Fisherman's Wharf Hyde Street Harbor & Pier 45. 
Prepared for the Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Planning Department January 1996. Available for review at the 
Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in the project file #93.574E. 

^California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1986 and subsequent amendments. Water Quality 
Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin Region (2) and 1995 Basin Plan Amendments. The Basin Plan was originally adopted and 
approved in 1986 and has been subsequently revised and amended a numt>er of times. The most recent updated amendments were 
adopted by the RWQCB on June 21, 1995 and approved bylhe State Water Resources Control Board on July 20, 1995. Final 
approval by the State Office of Administrative Law and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected in early 1996. 



42 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



which focuses on pollutant concentrations in water, sedinnent, and tissues, and their potential 
effects at selected stations in the Bay and estuary.^ The purpose of the program is to evaluate 
the effectiveness of RWQCB water quality programs in meeting Basin Plan objectives including 
protection of the beneficial uses of the Bay. The program is establishing a datat>ase on water 
quality and sediment quality in the estuary, particularly with regard to toxic and potentially toxic 
trace elements and organic contaminants. Data from the Regional Monitoring Program at the 
two stations closest to the project area (Richardson Bay and Yertsa Buena) are used in this 
report as an irxJication of background concentrations of chemicals found in the Bay. 

Under the federal Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (EPA) 
also has jurisdiction over water quality in San Francisco Bay. The EPA is currently in the 
process of developing a comprehensive set of receiving water quality criteria, as required under 
the federal Oean Water Act, that is expected to be imposed on the State of California in the near 
future. The new criteria would be an amendment to the 1992 National Toxics Rule which 
promulgated numeric water quality criteria for toxic pollutants. The National Toxics Rule 
includes aquatic life water quality criteria for metals, and there is ongoing discussion as to the 
appropriate chemical form for establishing criteria for these metals (see discussion below). In 
May 1995, the EPA issued metals criteria for aquatic life which reflect EPA's current policy for 
setting water quality criteria for metals. This interim final rule, effective April 15, 1995, 
established metals criteria that are protective of aquatic life and are intended to approximate the 
fraction of waterborne metals biologically-available to aquatic organisms.* 

Dredging activities, such as those associated with the proposed project, could affect water 
quality and are regulated by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (COE) as well as by the RWQCB. 
The COE has jurisdiction over issuance of pemriits for dredging activities affecting navigable 
waters as well as regulating diking, filling, placement of structures or other work in these waters. 
Under Section 404 of the Oean Water Act, the COE has authority to issue permits for discharge 
of dredged or fill nr^terial into inland and near coastal waters. Applicants for permits are 



^San Francisco Estuary Institute, 1994. 1993 Annual Report, San Francisco Estuary Regional Momtonnq Program for Trace 
Substances. December l, 1994. 

* Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 131, Water Quality Standards, Establishment ot Numeric Cntena for Pnonty Toxic Polluunts. 
May 4, 1995. 



43 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



required to satisfy several conditions intended to prevent 'unacceptable adverse effects' on the 
aquatic environnnent. Dredging activities are also within the purview of the RWQCB, which must 
verify that a dredged material discharge will not violate water quality standards. The RWQCB 
must grant Water Quality Certification for dredging and disposal activities in the San Francisco 
Estuary. Decisions to grant Water Quality Certification are based upon assessment of the 
potential for dredging and dredged material disposal to result in violations of water quality 
objectives. 

As part of their combined sewer overflow discharge permit requirements by the RWQCB, the 
City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Works conducts bacteriological 
monitoring of the nearshore recreational waters (including Aquatic Park) about three times per 
week to assure adequate water quality for water contact recreation (e.g., swimming). The 
monitoring results are used by the Department of Public Works to determine if tDacteria 
concentrations exceed safe levels for swimming. If warranted, based on the monitoring results, 
the department posts the beaches with signs that provide public notice of potential health 
hazard. Bacteriological monitoring was formerly also conducted at other locations along the 
City's waterfront, including the Fisherman's Wharf and Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 area^ from 
1991 to 1994. Results of recent years of sampling in the project area are discussed below under 
Existing Water Quality Conditions, Coliform Sampling. 

EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 

Water quality in San Francisco Bay in the vicinity of Fisherman's Wharf and Aquatic Park is 
affected by a number of physical factors, including tides, currents, waves, water depth 
(bathymetry), circulation and flushing, and sediment quality. These factors, along with existing 
water quality conditions are discussed below. 

Tides and Currents 

There are two daily tidal cycles in San Francisco Bay, with two ebb tides (outgoing or falling 
tides) and two flood tides (incoming or rising tides) which are associated with two high and two 
low water levels each day of varying heights. Changes in winds and barometric conditions can 



44 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

also cause variation in the tide level from day to day. Tidal currents in San Francisco Bay are 
related to the tides, though they are eilso affected by wind or river or stream discharges from 
land. Current behavior within a semi-enclosed basin, such as the project area, is influenced by a 
number of factors, including the size of the opening to the Bay, configuration of the breakwater, 
and other basin structures. The behavior of the current, in turn, influences the sedimentation 
and water quality characteristics within the basin by affecting circulation, flushing action and 
water exchange.' 

Tidal flushing in the inner lagoons is not as good as that in the Outer HartMDr and results in 
relatively poor water quality in those areas. Measurements of tidal current velocities were tal<en 
in 1987 at the Hyde Street Pier during the high tides and indicated that the maximum flood 
current speed is larger than the maximum ebb current speed. Current action within the basin is 
inhibited relative to the open water area and maximum current velocities of over 3 feet per 
second are possible in the berthing area. Water movement from currents flows from the Outer 
Harbor toward Aquatic Park during an ebb tide and in the reverse direction during a flood tide. 

Waves 

Waves in the project area may be locally generated wind waves, longer period waves generated 
in the Pacific Ocean, or ship-induced waves. Previous studies have determined that locally- 
generated wind waves are more critical on wave activity within the Fisherman's Wharf basin 
than longer period waves emanating from the ocean.* These local wind waves are not 
estimated to exceed approximately 1 .5 feet in height within the harbor area and would be 
expected to occur from the northwest. Ship-induced waves resulting from boat traffic outside 
the harbor have short periods and can be considered to be similar, but less critical, than locally 

generated wind waves; waves generated by boat traffic within the harbor are suppressed due to 
restrictions on vessel speed.^ 



'Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, AGS and Kwan Henmi Architecture, 1988. Fisherman's Wharf Harbor Feasibility Study. 
Prepared for the Port of San Francisco, California, June 1, 1988. 

^Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, AGS, and Kwan Henmi Architecture, 1988, 111-10. Fishermans Wharf Harbor Feasibtlity Study. 
Prepared for the Port of San Francisco, California, June 1, 1988. 

^Moffatt & NicfTOl Engineers, AGS, and Kwan Henmi Architecture, 1988. Fisherman s Wharl Feasibility Study Prepared for 
the Port of San Francisco, June l, 1988. 



45 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

Bathymetry 

The Port periodically conducts a survey of water depths (bathymetric survey) as part of its 
maintenance dredging program. A bathymetric survey was also corxJucted with regard to the 
construction of the breakwater. A survey conducted in January 1991 indicated that the water 
depths in the Inner Lagoon range from 8 to 10 feet (below mean lower low water, MLLW) at the 
landward side of the lagoon and from 6.9 to 12.2 feet at the side nearest Pier 45. In the Outer 
Lagoon, the water depths ranged from 10.8 to 14.6 feet (MLLW). In all cases, water depth was 
greater at the entrance to the lagoon than in the inner part of the lagoons. A bathymetric survey 
performed in July 1994 showed that between Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Pier, the depths range 
from 1 1 to 19 feet below mean lower low water.* 

Circulation /Rushing 

In 1988, the Port examined the effects of an existing tidal culvert on water quality in 
Fisherman's Wharf Harbor." The tidal culvert, shown on Figure 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, 
consists of a 3.8- by 6.0-foot concrete rectangular box culvert that was constructed as part of 
Pier 45 in the late 1920s. Measurement of currents at the culvert entrance showed that currents 
were up to 1.2 feet per second into the Inner Lagoon and 1.4 feet per second out of the Inner 
Lagoon, predominantly due to tides. 

A numerical model was used to estimate the effect of the culvert on the residence time of water 
in the Inner Lagoon as a measure of flushing in the lagoon. Residence time is defined as the 
average time required for complete exchange, or renewal, of water in an enclosed area. The 
results indicated that for average tidal conditions, the residence time in the Bay east of Pier 45 is 
1 to 2 hours, compared to 1 to 2 days and 2 to 3 days for the Inner and Outer Lagoons, 
respectively. The actual residence times varies for different tidal conditions, decreasing during 
spring tides (the highest and lowest tides) and increasing during neap tides (lowest level of high 



* Advanced Biological Testing, 1995. Results of Chemical, Physical and Bioassav Testing of Sediments Proposed for 
Maintenance Dredging at Rsherman Wharf, Port of San Francisco. January 12, 1995. Available for review at the Planning 
Department, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco in project file 93.574E 

'Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 1988 . Investigation of the affects of a tidal culvert on water gualltV in Fishennan Wharf 
Harbor, Port of San Francisco. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Walnut Creek, CA. November 1988. 



46 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



tide). Water quality conditions in the Outer Hartjor area are and have been generally better than 
water quality in the Inner and Outer Lagoon areas due to greater tidal flushing action. 



Sediment Qualitv 

Chemical and physical analyses and bioassays were conducted on sedimentary material at 
Fisherman's Wharf in 1994 in the Outer Lagoon and Outer Harbor areas (near Pier 47) as part 
of a maintenance dredging project. The data indicated that the concentration of chemicals in 
the sediments from this area were generally within normal limits for San Francisco Bay 
sediments (see Table 2, Appendix 6). The samples were analyzed for a wide range of metals, 
pesticides and other organic compounds, and only the following chemicals were detected In the 
sediment: antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organic tin compounds, phthalates, sulfides, total recoveratjie 
petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon. The results of the physical testing indicated 
that the sediments in the project area were predominantly finer grained sediments of clay and 
silt (about 80 percent), with a lower percentage of coarser grained sand compared to sediments 
from a reference site near Alcatraz which had about 2 percent fine particles. The bioassay tests 
indicated that limiting permissible concentrations were not exceeded in the toxicity testing.'" 

EXISTING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS 

Water quality sampling was conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants on May 10, 1995 in the 
vicinity of Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Harbor to provide water quality information for 
comparison with previous sampling data and for an indication of existing conditions." The 
sampling plan and results are summarized below. 

The purpose of the water quality sampling was to: (1) assess water quality in the project area 



Advanced Biological Testing, 1995. Results of Chemical, Physical and Bioassay Testing of Sediments Proposed lor 
Maintenance Dredging at Fisherman's Whart, Port of San Francisco. Prepared for Port of San Francisco. January 12. 1995 Availabie 
for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street in the project file #93.574E. 

" Woodward-Clyde Consuftants, 1995. Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 Water Quality Sampling Plan. Apnl 27, 1995 and Woodward- 
Clyde Consultants, 1995, Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 May 10, 1995 Baseline Water Quality Results August 21, 1995 Availatjie for 
review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in the project file #93.574E. 



47 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



for constituents which may be affected by the proposed project and are of potential concern to 
those involved in water contact recreation, particularly in Aquatic Park; (2) assess water quality 
in Aquatic Park for constituents which may be affected by the proposed Hyde Street Hartx)r and 
Pier 45 improvements; and (3) assess water quality outside of the area of immediate concern for 
comparison with the project area and the Aquatic Park. The sampling plan also established a 
protocol for potential future single-event water quality sampling in the Fisherman's Wharf area. 

Sampling Procedures 

Water quality samples were collected at six stations, as shown on Figure 1 1 . Station 1 is 
located in the Inner Lagoon at the end of the pier, Station 2 is located in the Outer Lagoon at 
the existing fuel dock, and Station 3 is in the center of the Outer Harbor (Main Basin); these 
three stations represent the area where water is potentially affected by the commercial fishing 
vessels and related activities. Station 4 is located in Aquatic Park lagoon near the swimming 
buoys in front of the Dolphin Qub and South End Rowing Club docks; this station was selected 
to represent the water most often contacted by swimmers in the lagoon. Station 5, located west 
of the municipal pier, and Station 6, located at the harbor entrance north of Pier 45, represent an 
area outside the immediate area of concern and are used to determine the water quality 
conditions in areas subject to higher Bay flushing than the hartxar (including the Inner and Outer 
Lagoons and the Outer Hartxjr) and Aquatic Park. The time and date of sampling were selected 
to coincide with tidal conditions which were predicted to favor accumulation of debris and other 
materials of concern in the Harbor and transport of these materials from the Harbor to Aquatic 
Park. Based on water cun-ent surveys and hydrodynamic modeling conducted by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (COE) before and after the breakwater construction, it appears that during 
an ebbing tide, the direction of water current flow is from the Outer Harbor (Main Basin) toward 
Aquatic Park. However, modeling conducted by the COE did not take into conskJeration the 
effect of the presence of historical ships docked along the east skJe of Hyde Street Pier between 
Fisherman's Wharf and Aquatic Park. It has been reported that the hulls of some of the ships 
are lying in Bay sediments.'^ Their presence at depth may Impede water circulation between 
the Hartjor and Aquatic Park. Higher concentrations of debris and other materials were 



Carol Brown, 1995. Meeting with Marilyn Duffey on Janyary 17, 1995. During this nneeting, it was stated that the historic 
ship Eureka s its on the bottom and Is turned by tug boat twice yearly. 



48 




49 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



assumed to occur in the Outer Harbor following a period of minimal flushing, during which time 
these materials may accumulate in the Hartx)r without being diluted by other waters. Therefore, 
the time and date of sampling were scheduled to attempt to coincide with neap tides, during the 
period of ebbing flow when water current velocities were low. 

Although locally-generated wind waves could affect water currents from the Harbor to Aquatic 
Park, wind conditions could not be predicted and sampling was scheduled to occur in the 
evening and in the morning when winds are typically slight. The wind was calm during the 
sampling of Stations 1 and 6. A light breeze from the northwest began during sampling at 
Station 2, became stronger during sampling of Station 3, and continued for the duration of the 
sampling at Stations 4 and 5. 

Water samples were collected approximately six inches below the water surface to represent the 
portion of the water column that is most often contacted by swimmers as a result of the mixing 
that occurs during swimming. Surface sampling was not conducted because of this mixing 
action. Sample collection was conducted using standard, approved methods, and laboratory 
analysis were conducted using approved methods for most constituents and special methods for 
organics to provide low detection limits. Selection of water quality constituents measured was 
based on potential pollutants associated with Harbor activities, results of previous water quality 
and sediment testing, and public input. 

Samplinc Results 

Water quality samples collected in the project area in May 1995 were analyzed for conventional 
parameters, bacterial indicators, nutrients, metals, pdynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, organic 
tin compounds, petroleum-related hydrocartx^ns, and organophosphorus pesticides. The results 
of the water quality sampling data collected on May 10, 1995 are summarized in Table 1, 
Appendix B, page A.32. The data indicate that the water quality in the project area does not 
exceed state Basin Plan water quality objectives. Similarly, the data do not exceed the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency water quality standards, with the exception of dissolved 
copper levels at two of the sampling locations. The quality of the water in the project area is 
generally within the same range as water quality data from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay 



50 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



collected in 1993 as part of the Regional Monitoring Program (see Table 1. Appendix B, page 
A.32). 

Measurements of salinity, temperature, and pH indicated similar ranges of values for all six 
stations. The salinity in the project area ranged from 10 to 14 parts per thousand (ppt), which is 
comparable to salinity measurements for the Central Bay from the Regional Monitoring Program 
during March 1993 (about 16 ppt which represents the wet season when freshwater outflow from 
the Delta is highest). Levels of total suspended solids, turbidity, and biochemical oxygen 
demand, which could be indicators of potential effects of stormwater runoff, fish processing 
waste, or tenant washdown of the pier apron, were also within similar ranges at all six stations. 



The coliform bacteria measurements are used as indicators of human waste and potential 
presence of human pathogens or marine mammal waste. The data indicate that the Inner 
Lagoon, Outer Lagoon and Outer Harbor (Main Basin) had higher concentrations of coliform 
bacteria compared to Aquatic Park and areas outside of the breakwater. The source of coliform 
could be due to stormwater or urban runoff, possible illegal discharges from fishing boats, or 
unsupervised discharges on weekends, or from marine mammals. However, despite the 
differences in coliform levels measured between sampling stations, the concentrations measured 
at all sampling stations except for the Outer Harbor were within the public health criteria for 
bacteriological standards for water contact recreation; however, compliance criteria for 
bacteriological standards are based on sampling over a thirty-day period. This means that 
based on public health criteria, the water quality in the project area, except the Outer Harbor, 
would be considered acceptable for swimming but additional sampling would be required. The 
bacteriological standards for public beach or water-contact sports require that sample have a 
coliform levels less than 1,000 Most Probat>le Number per 100 milliliter (MPN/100 mL. which is a 
statistical measure of the number of bacterial colonies) and no single sample shall exceed 
10,000 per 100 mL^^ The maximum colifomi concentration measured was 1600 MPN/100 mL 
in the Outer Hartx)r, and all other stations were less than 1,000 MPN/100 mL Comparison of 



Title 17, Chapter 5 of the California Code of Regulations, states that the "Bacteriological standards tor each pubJtc beach or 
water- contact sports area shall be as follows: Samples of water from each sampling statron at a public beach or public water -contact 
sports area shall have a most probable number of coliform organisms less than 1,000 per 100 m(; provided that not more than 20 
percent of the samples at any sampling station, in any 30-day period, may exceed 1,000 per 100 wt, and provided further that no 
single sample when verified by a repeat sample taken within 48 hours shall exceed 10.000 per 100 n-y 



51 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



historical coliform data in the project area with other coiiform data along San Francisco's 
waterfront is discussed further below. 

The only nutrient found In the samples tested was ammonia nitrogen, which could potentially be 
present in stormwater runoff, fish processing waste and human waste. The concentrations 
measured at all stations indicate that ammonia levels were less than the Basin Plan objective for 
the Central San Francisco Bay. 

Water samples were analyzed for both total recoverable metals and dissolved metals to enable 
comparison with current Basin Plan objectives and EPA's proposed interim criteria, 
respectively. The metals analyzed include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper lead, mercury, 
nickel, selenium, silver and zinc. Arsenic, copper, nickel and zinc were the only metals detected 
and were present at all sample stations. The concentrations of all of the total recoverable metals 
were less than the applicable Basin Plan water quality objectives for toxic pollutants for surface 
waters with salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand. Concentrations of "dissolved metals" in 
water have been determined by EPA to reflect more accurately the fraction of waterborne metals 
biologically-available to aquatic organisms compared to "total recoverable metals". Thus, 
revisions to the federal water quality standards for metals criteria were issued in an interim final 
rule in May 1995, and California is subject to the revised metals criteria." The sampling data 
from May 1995 at the project area indicate that, with the exception of copper, the concentrations 
of all dissolved metals at all stations were less than the federal saltwater dissolved metals 
criteria. The dissolved copper data indicated that concentrations exceeded the 2.4 microgram 
per liter (ug/L or part per billion) criterion at Station 1 (Inner Lagoon) and Station 4 (Aquatic 
Park), with concentrations measured at 3.2 and 2.8 ug/L, respectively. The saltwater copper 
criteria of 2.4 ug/L is still being examined by EPA, with an alternate criterion of 3.1 ug/L under 
consideration." 

Total petroleum hydrocarbons, either as gasoline or diesel, were not detected at any of the 
sampling stations, with a laboratory reporting limit of 50 parts per billion. The samples were also 

'* Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 86, Thursday, May 4, 1995, Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR Part 131. 
"Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 86, Thursday, May 4, 1995, Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR Part 131. 

52 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which are major components of 
petroleum products and could also serve as Irxjicators of contamination from vessel fueling, 
maintenance activities, or other sources of petroleum products, such as urt}an runoff. The 
results show none of these chemicals were detected at a reporting limit of 0.5 parts per billion, 
with one exception. Toluene was detected in the Outer Hartxjr (Main Basin) at 0.73 ug/L, which 
is six orders of magnitude (10^) less than the water quality objective to protect human health. 
During sample collection, the field observations noted an organic sheen apparent in the Inner 
Lagoon (Station 1) and in the vicinity of the Outer Harbor (Station 3), but none was noted at any 
of the other stations.^' 

Compounds of organic tin (monobutyltin, dibutyltin, tributyltin, and tetrabutyltin) are commonly 
used as an anti-fouling agent and used in marine paints for the hulls of boats. They are known 
to be toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations, about one part per billion. Analysis for these 
compounds identified presence of tributyltin and tetrabutyltin in the Inner Lagoon (Station 1), but 
no organic tin compounds were detected at any of the other locations. The concentration of 
tributyltin measured at Station 1 was 13 nanograms per liter (ng/L or parts per trillion); this value 
does not exceed any water quality objectives, since none is stated in the Basin Plan, but it is 
higher than a value of 5 ng/L (30-day average) which, based on technical information, would be 
considered protective of human health. 

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in all samples at all locations at 
concentrations in the range of 5 to 88 ng/L (or parts per trillion). The concentrations were 
generally similar at all stations for all PAHs measured. PAHs are a class of organic compounds 
commonly formed as the result of incomplete combustion of organic materials, such as motor 
oil or automobile exhaust. Natural sources, such as forest fires and volcanoes, also contribute 
to background concentrations of PAHs in the environment. Some of the reported PAHs have 



The sampling method used to collect water was designed to obtain samples nx>3t representative of water contacted by 
swimmers, which was determined to be generally an area of mixing about six inches bek)w the water surface Obtaining a sample 
of the surface micro-layer was considered, but It was determined to be less reliabie than the selected method because of physical 
constraints (such as wind speed and water turbulance) associated with quantification of pollutant concentratrans m surface films For 
additional information, refer to Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 Water Quality SanxJiing Plan. Apnl 27, 1995. 
which in available for review at the Planning Department. 1660 Mission Street, in the protect file #93 574E. 

'^California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Regton, 1995. 1995 Basin Plan Amendments, June 2i. 
1995. 



53 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

been identified by the U.S. EPA as carcinogenic (see below under Public Health). The Basin 
Plan objective for PAHs was not exceeded at any of the sampling station, and the sample results 
also indicate that PAH concentrations were less than the applicable EPA standards. 

Concentrations of all organophosphorus pesticides were below reporting limits for samples at all 
stations. There are no water quality objectives or standards for this group of compounds. 
Organophosphonjs pesticides are commonly used to control insects or other pests, and there Is 
the potential for these compounds to be present in stormwater runoff or washdown from the pier 
apron; these compounds could potentially affect the marine ecology. 

PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY 

A risk assessment of the May 10, 1995 sampling results in the project area was prepared and Is 
summarized below. ^' Carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic adverse health effects were 
evaluated for analytical results of samples collected at all sampling stations, with focus on 
Station 4, Aquatic Park, where swimming occurs. The potential chemicals of concern consisted 
of the following chemicals: acenaphthene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, 
fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, toluene, arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc. 

Arsenic was the only metal detected that is considered to be a carcinogenic compound by the 
U.S. EPA. The other three metals (copper, nickel, and zinc) were evaluated as non-carcinogens. 
The highest concentration of arsenic detected was 2.3 ug/L, which is well below the Drinking 
Water Standard (or Maximum Contaminant Level) of 50 ug/L Arsenic was evaluated as both a 
carcinogen and a non-carcinogen. 

Of the chemical compounds typically associated with fuels and gasoline (benzene, toluene, 
ethylbenzene and xylene, and total petroleum hydrocartxDns), only toluene was detected and at 
only one station. It occurred in the Outer Hartx)r (Main Basin) at a concentration of less than 
one part per billion (0.73 ug/L), which is about one hundred times less than the California 
maximum contaminant level for drinking water of 0.15 mg/L (or 150 ug/L) and about one 



'* Soma Corporation, 1995. Risk Assessment for Hyde Street EIR. September 1995. Available for review at the Planning 
Oepartnnent. 1660 Mission Street, in the project file #93.574E. 



54 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



thousand times less than the federal drinking water standard of 1 mg/L (or 1,000 ug/L). 
Toluene was evaluated as a non-carcinogen. 

Low concentrations of various polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs) were 
detected above the laboratory reporting limit in samples at all locations, in the concentration 
range of parts per trillion. Special laboratory methods were used to obtain the lowest detection 
limits. Of the eight PAHs detected above the laboratory reporting limit, two are classified by the 
EPA as carcinogenic compounds: benzo(b)fluoranthene and chrysene. In general, however, 
extensive research on the toxicological effects of individual PAH compounds has not been 
conducted. There are no available drinking water standards for any of the PAHs detected . The 
concentrations of PAHs reported by the laboratory appear to be within the range of 
concentrations that have been reported in potable surface and ground waters in the United 
States. As stated previously, PAHs are commonly formed as a result of incomplete combustion 
of organic materials, and sources of PAHs are pervasive in the environment, such as in 
automobile exhaust or forest fires. 

A screening level quantitative risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential for 
adverse health effects due to potential contact with the chemicals detected in project area 
waters during the May 1995 sampling event. The chemicals evaluated included PAHs, metals 
(arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc) and toluene. Both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects 
of these chemicals were assessed independently. Using the results of the May 1995 sampling 
event and conservative assumptions regarding exposure to these chemicals while swimming in 
Aquatic Park, the assessment provides information relevant to the health risks associated with 
potential exposure to these chemicals in the harbor waters. 

The results of the risk assessment indicated that the total carcinogenic risk associated with 
swimming in Aquatic Park is approximately equivalent to an excess cancer rate of about three 
cases of cancer in a population of one million. (This can also be interpreted to be a probability 
of about 3 in one million for an individual to contract cancer.) This estimate of risk is lower than 
the risk of cancer due to drinking water in San Francisco, which is atjout two cases of cancer in 
a population of 100,000 persons. The calculated risk associated with swimming in Aquatic Park 
is also lower than the "significant risk level" established by the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic 



55 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65), which is one excess case of cancer in an exposed 
population of 100,000 persons. 

Results of the evaluation of potential non-carcinogenic adverse health effects Indicated an 
unlikelihood for non-carcinogenic adverse health effects to occur. 

MARINE BIOTA EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY 

The previous discussion of sampling results from the May 1995 sampling event has generally 
been with regard to public health implications, which in most cases, provide the basis for the 
water quality objectives and standards. However, marine biota can also be affected by changes 
in water quality, and in some cases, marine organisms may be more sensitive to concentrations 
of some chemicals in the Bay water than humans. MEG Analytical Systems conducted a review 
of the 1995 sampling results with respect to potential water quality effects on marine biota and 
specifically those chemicals of most concern to marine organisms,^® as summarized below. 

The chemicals that were sampled and analyzed for in the project area that are of potential 
concern to marine organisms based on the concentrations measured include copper, tributyltin, 
benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene. In general, the measured concentrations of these chemicals 
would not be expected to be harmful to marine organisms. The potential effects of these 
chemicals to marine biota are summarized in Table 4, with more detailed explanation included in 
Appendix B of this report. 



" MEC Analytical Systems, 1995. Marine Biota Setting and Environmental Consequences of Water Quality, San Francisco Pier 
45 Project. March, July and August, 1995. 



56 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ON MARINE ORGANISMS 



Chemical 
of Concern 

Copper 



Tributyttin 



Benzo(a) 
anthracene 



Cone. Level 
May 1995 

3.2 ug/L 
2.8 ug/L 



13 ng/L 



<5.42 ng/L 



Sampling 
Location 

Inner Lagoon 
Aquatic Park 



Inner Lagoon 



all stations 



Threshold Cone. 
for Effects 

4.8 ug/L 



100 ng/L 



1-2 million ng/L 



Comments 



Interim EPA standard is 2.4 ug/L 
but is expected to be revised; 
no effects expected. 

Acute toxicity at 100 ng/L, but sub- 
lethal effects noted at 9-20 ng/L 
and could occur. 

Threshold for acute toxicity; no 
effects expected. 



Chrysene 



6.8 ng/L 



Breakwater 1 million ng/L 



Few studies but no effects 
expected. 



Notes: ug/L = microgram per liter or parts per billion; ng/L = nanogram per liter or parts per trillion 
Source: MEC Analytical Systems, Inc., 1995. 



57 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF BACTERIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY 

Monitoring of bacteria in surface water along the San Francisco waterfront has been conducted 
by the San Francisco Clean Water Program pursuant to its NPDES permit. One of the purposes 
of the monitoring is to determine if bacteria levels in Aquatic Park are in excess of those 
considered safe for water contact recreation. Excessive bacterial levels have historically 
occurred following combined sewage overflow events, when high rainfall amounts cause the 
storage and sewage treatment capacities to be exceeded and untreated sewage mixed with 
stormwater is discharged at various overflow points to the Bay. In the past 20 years, there have 
been ongoing improvements to San Francisco's wastewater treatment and conveyance system 
which are designed to minimize the occurrence of combined sewage overflow events. 

A statistical evaluation of coliform data from Bay water sampling stations in the vicinity of 
Aquatic Park was conducted by SOMA Corporation using the coliform data collected by the City 
from September 30, 1991 to October 4, 1992.^° The purpose of the study was to evaluate if 
coliform concentrations in the Hyde Street Harbor area west of Pier 45 are statistically correlated 
with coliform concentrations in the Aquatic Park swimming area. The study compared sampling 
locations at the foot of Leavenworth Street (in the Outer l_agoon of the project area) and at 
Fisherman's Wharf near the Pump Station (in the Inner Lagoon of the project area) with 
sampling locations at the east end of Aquatic Park shoreline, plus two control stations 1-1 /2 and 
2-1 /2 miles west of Aquatic Park. The study included a limited evaluation of the potential 
influences of rainfall, tidal conditions, and fish landings on coliform concentrations. 

The results of the statistical study indicated that the average coliform concentrations in the 
project area were significantly higher than the average concentration at Aquatic Park. However, 
based on the available data, no statistically significant correlation of coliform concentrations was 
identified between those at Aquatic Park and those at either of the two project area stations. 
The Aquatic Park coliform concentrations did show a statistically significant correlation with 
concentrations at the two control stations west of Aquatic Park. No significant correlations were 



SOMA Corporation, 1995. Statistical Evaluation Aquatic Park Coliform Data, Hyde Street Harbor EIR, San Francisco, California. 
April 7, 1995. Available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street in the project file #93.574E. 



58 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Qualrty 

identified for ebb or flood periods, nor were there correlations with the size of tidal fluctuations 
near the time of the sampling event. The amount of rainfall during the previous 24-hour period 
was significantly correlated with coliform concentrations at Aquatic Park and the control stations 
but not with concentrations at the project area locations. Fish and crab landings did not 
significantly correlate with coliform concentrations at Aquatic Park or the nearest project area 
station, and were inversely correlated with the station closest to Fisherman's Wharf. Based on 
the results of this study, it appears that bacteriological water quality in the Inner and Outer 
Lagoon of the project area does not affect the t)acteriological water quality in Aquatic Park. In 
addition, the quantity of daily fish landings during this period does not appear to be related to 
bacteriological water quality in Aquatic Park. 

PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS 

1989 Bendix Study 

Previous water quality sampling in the project area was conducted in 1989 by Bendix for toxic 
chemicals.^' Subsurface water samples (6 inches below the surface) were collected in four 
locations: Outer Lagoon, Outer Harbor (Main Basin), and west and east sides of Aquatic Park. 
Water samples were collected three times, once each in April, May and August. It was assumed 
that the most extreme variations in water quality would occur after the tide had been moving in a 
particular direction for the maximum period of time, so most of the samples were taken in the 
hour prior to the change in tidal currents from incoming to outgoing tides. Samples were 
analyzed for priority pollutants (metals, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, 
organochlorine pesticides and PCB, organophosphorus pestickJes, and chlorinated herbicides) 
using standard EPA methods. 

Several aspects of the 1989 sampling were questioned by the public, particularly the timing of 
the sample events with respect to tkJal and circulation conditions, since It nnay not have been 
reflective of water quality conditions which cause transport from the Hyde Street Hartxjr area to 
Aquatic Park. Most of the samples were collected one hour before the flood to ebb slack period. 



^' Bendix Environmental Research, Inc., 1989. Fisherman Wharf Seafood Center Water Quality Report. Prepared lor the 
Office of Environmental Review. San Francisco Department of City Planning. November 29, 1989. 



59 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



In addition, there are questions regarding the reporting limits and quality assurance procedures 
used in the latxsratory analyses. Therefore, use of the 1989 sampling information for this EIR is 
limited. 

Comparison of the current sampling results (May 1995) with the 1989 sampling data show some 
similarities. Of the metals, copper, nickel and zinc were detected during both sampling events in 
the Outer Lagoon and the Outer Harbor (Main Basin), but the 1989 sampling also detected 
mercury and silver at these locations, that were not detected in the 1995 sampling. The 1995 
sampling event detected arsenic in these areas, while none was detected in 1989. The 1989 
sampling analyzed a wider range of metals than the 1995 event, and trace concentrations of 
antimony, barium, thallium, and vanadium were also detected in 1989 but were not analyzed for 
in 1 995. It should be noted that analytical methods and reporting limits were not comparable 
between the two studies. 

The 1989 sampling event did not indicate any volatile organic compounds above reporting limits, 
including benzene and toluene. The 1995 sampling event included the analysis of only benzene 
and toluene in this class of compounds, and similar to the 1989 data, no benzene was detected 
above reporting limits. However, the 1995 data did indicate a detection of toluene in the Outer 
Harbor. Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides were not detected above 
reporting limits in the 1989 data, and they were not sampled or analyzed for in the 1995 
sampling event because of their previous absence and lack of correlation between these 
chemicals and fishing activities. Organophosphorus pesticides were analyzed at both sampling 
events, and two compounds were detected in May 1 989 in the Outer Harbor (demeton at 29.6 
ug/L and disulfoton at 13.8 ug/L) but none were detected at any location in the May 1995 
sampling event. Phthalates were detected in the 1989 sampling event but were not included in 
the 1 995 sampling because of the widespread occurrence of these common components of 
plastics and the low concentrations encountered in the 1989 study. No polynuclear aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected above reporting limits in the 1989 samples, but as 
discussed above, some PAHs were detected at low concentrations at all locations in the 1995 
samples. Results of the May 1995 sampling event appear to corroborate much of the data from 
the 1989 sampling event in terms of the types of chemicals present in the harbor waters, but the 



60 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

more accurate sampling and analytical methcxJs used in 1995 provide a more accurate (and 
current) indication of water quality conditions in the project area. 

1994 Port Stormwater Sampling 

Sampling was conducted by the Port of San Francisco on January 24, 1994 as part of the wet 
weather water quality data associated with its stormwater management protection program. 
Samples were collected along the waterfront, including one station at Pier 45 in the Fisherman's 
Wharf area, and were analyzed for metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 
nickel, selenium and zinc), specific conductance, pH, suspended solids, grease and oil, and 
ammonia. The results are generally consistent with the May 1995 sampling data, although the 
analytical reporting limits were much higher, particularly for the metals, and low concentrations 
of these chemicals could not be detected. Therefore, the results of the two sampling events 
cannot be directly compared. 

Other Water Quality Data 

As part of a site investigation/characterization report in 1990 for the former Mobil Oil Bulk Plant 
on Jefferson Street, Bay water in the project area was collected and analyzed for petroleum 
hydrocarbons." Analysis of the water samples collected from the Bay at two locations 
revealed no detectable concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, or any 
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylene. The study had indicated that there are potential 
sources of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents in the soil and groundwater landward of the 
project site, but the seawall appeared to be an effective hydrogeologic barrier, preventing 
migration of pollutants to the Bay. This result is consistent with the 1995 sampling results for the 
same constituents in the Inner and Outer Lagoon stations, the stations closest to land. 



^^Port of San Francisco, 1994. Bay Receiving Waters Wet Weather Water Quality Data, Table l. Collected January 24. 
1994. 

Alton Geoscience, Inc., 1990. Site Investigation/Characterization Report at Fonrter Mobil Oil Bulk Plant. 440 Jefferson 
Street, San Francisco, California. September 20, 1990. Available for review at the Department of Public Works, Bureau of 
Construction Management, 1680 Mission Street, San Francisco. 



61 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

In 1983, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a water quality survey in the Inner and 
Outer Lagoons, In the Outer Harbor, and offshore prior to construction of the breakwater, but 
data are insufficient to compare with 1995 sampling results. 



62 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



C. MARINE BIOLOGY 

San Francisco Bay is segmented into the North Bay (Suisun and San Pablo Bays), Central Bay 
and South Bay, all which have characteristic aquatic conditions. The Central Bay includes 
waters bounded by the Golden Gate Bridge to the east, San Pablo Bay to the north, and Is 
characterized by oceanic water conditions. This section describes the biota in the Central Bay 
that may occur at times within the project site. Plankton form the basis of the food chain. 
Intertidal, benthic, and fish species reflect the marine influence of the Golden Gate. Birds and 
mammals that utilize the Central Bay area are discussed. 

PLANKTON 

Plankton are organisms that live in the water column and are carried passively with water 
currents. Phytoplankton are photosynthetic organisms that convert inorganic nutrients into 
organic material and are important because of their role as primary producers. Zooplankton 
are nonphotosynthetic organisms that consume other organisms or organic material. The 
zooplankton component includes forms that are planktonic throughout their life cycle as well as 
eggs and lan/al forms of many invertebrates and fish (fish eggs and larvae often are referred to 
as ichthyoplankton). 

Population sizes and distribution of planktonic organisms fluctuate with season, availability of 
light, nutrients, temperature, and other environmental parameters. Hence, the distribution and 
abundance of the plankton community are patchy and extremely dynamic. Generally, diatoms 
(phytoplankton) bloom in spring to early summer with minor peaks in the fall. A slight reduction 
in phytoplankton abundance occurs in middle to late summer, when dinoflagellates are 
dominant. Because zooplankton forage on phytoplankton, high and low zooplankton 
productivity coincides with phytoplankton cycles, with production in spring and early summer. 
Shallow-water diatoms from adjacent coastal waters are the dominant phytoplankton in San 
Francisco Bay in the spring; dinoflagellates and crytomonads are numerous at other times of the 
year. 

Calanoid copepods are abundant zooplankters throughout most of the Bay. Copepods are the 



63 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

primary food for many small fish, including young striped bass.^ Zooplankton that are 
commonly collected in the Central Bay include the shrimp Nematoscelis difficilis, Thysanoessa 
gregaria, and Nyctiphanes simplex, and larvae of the ghost shrimp {Neotrypaea calif orniensis)} 

INTERTIDAL 

Intertidal fauna are subject to environmental stress due to fluctuating temperatures and 
desiccation. Tidal exposure is an important factor in determining the distribution of intertidal 
biota. It has long been observed that animals inhabit different vertical zones of the shore 
according to relative lengths of exposure to air and water. 

Intertidal habitat is found on the breakwater and wharf pilings near the project site. The hard 
substrate of the breakwater provides substantial surface area for the attachment of algae and 
invertebrates, which, in turn, support a diverse community of organisms inci ding fish and birds. 
Pilings also support a community of hard substrate biota. Common intertidal animals in the 
Central Bay include barnacles, crabs, and mussels. 

BENTHOS 

Benthic invertebrates include infauna, which live in bottom sediments, and epibenthic 
macrofauna, which are larger, motile organisms that live on the sediment surface. The infauna 
usually is dominated, in both species diversity and abundance, by annelid worms. Other 
common infaunal groups include crustaceans, molluscs, and echinoderms. Organisms 
associated with this habitat are an important element of the marine food web. 

The waters in the Central Bay are relatively deep and saline, and strong tidal currents create a 
dynamic bottom as sand waves reverse direction on each tide. The benthic community in the 
Central Bay reflects this marine influence and is composed largely of species that are found in 



' EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San 
Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice. 

^ CDFG/California Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Lonqterm Trends in Zooplankton Distribution and Abundance in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Exhibit No. 28 to California JWater Resources Control Board, 1987 Water Quality/Water Rights 
Proceeding on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Deita, Sacramento. CA. 88pp. 



64 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



sediments along the coast.^/,^ In a study of soft bottom benthos in San Francisco Bay, the 
average abundance of infauna in the Central Bay (east of Verba Buena) was 472 animals per 0.1 
square meter* A total of 99 different taxa were found. The most abundant species were the 
crustacean amphipod Ampelisca atxJita, and the annelid polychaete Asychis elongata and the 
oligochaete Tubificoides spp. 

The benthic community responds strongly to both seasonal and year to year changes in 
physical parameters. Total weight of molluscs may be greater in winter compared to summer, 
while annelids, crustaceans, and other phyla often have higher values in summer.^,® The 
strong water mixing within the Bay aids dispersal of larvae, juveniles, and adults of small species 
and allows rapid colonization of available substrate.^ 

Relatively few species of epibenthic macroinvertebrates are found in San Francisco Bay. The 
most abundant are crustaceans such as bay shrimp, Dungeness crab, and other crabs. The 
native Dungeness crab, Cancer magister, was once commercially harvested from the Bay. 



^Liu, D.H.W., K.D. Martin, and C.R. Norwood. 1975. San Francisco Bay Benthic Community Study— Technical Evaluation. U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers dredge disposal study, San Francisco Bay and estuary, Appendix 0. San Francisco. 244pp. 

* Nichols, F.H. 1979. Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on Benthic Community Structure in San Francisco Bay. In: San 
Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. T.J. Conomos (ed.). Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
San Francisco, CA. 

^Nichols, F.H., and M.M. Pamatmat. 1988. The Ecology of the Soft-bottom Benthos of San Francisco Bay: A Community Profile. 
Biol. Rep. 85(7.19). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

^MEC/MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1987. Analysis of Infauna! Community Structure from Four Sites in the San Francisco Bay 
Region. Prepared for Pacific Office, Coastal and Estuarine Assessment Branch Ocean Assessments Division, National Ocean and 
Service, U.S. NOAA. 

^ Nichols, F.H., and M.M. Pamatmat. 1988. The Ecology of the Soft-bottom Bentfios of San Francisco Bay: A Community 
Profile. Biol. Rep. 85(7.19). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

*EPA/Environnr)ental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Wetlands and Related Habitats in San Francisco Bay. 
San Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

'Nichols, F.H., and M.M. Pamatmat. 1988. The Ecology of the Soft-bottom Benthos of San Francisco Bay: A Convnunity ProfUe. 
Biol. Rep. 85(7.19). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 



65 



PDEIR3 (April 18. 1996) 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



Today, however, the importance of the Bay to this species lies in its use as a nursery area/° 
The mouth of San Francisco Bay is a major settling area, and crabs enter the Bay as 
juveniles. Juvenile crabs remain in the Bay until August or September of the following 
year.^^ 

Native bay shrimp, including California bay shrimp (Crangon franciscorum), blacktail bay shrimp 
(C. nigricauda), blackspotted bay shrimp (C. nigromaculata), northern bay shrimp (C. 
alaskensis), and ghost shrimp {Neotrypaea calif ornienesis), are collected for use as bait for 
commercial fisheries.^^ In a study of the epifaunal invertebrates at Presidio Shoal, which lies 
between the project site and the Golden Gate Bridge, the most abundant species was the 
northern bay shrimp.^'* 

FISH 

With primarily deep water habitats, the Central Bay has a rich fish assemblage reflective of its 
direct connection with the Pacific Ocean. Marine fish species dominate the southern portion, 
whereas estuarine species are characteristic of the northern portion due to the influence of 
freshwater input from San Pablo Bay. 

Commercial and recreational fish species frequently captured from the Central Bay are listed in 
Table 5. Dominant species include northern anchovy, English sole, shiner surfperch, white 



'°Tasto, R.N. 1983. Juvenile Dungeness Crab in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Life History, Environment and Mariculture Studies 
of the Dunqeness Crab, Cancer maqister, with Emphasis on the Central California Fishery Resource. P.W. Wild and R.N. Tasto (eds.). 
California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin No. 172:135-154. 

" Hatfield, S.E. 1983. Distribution of Zooplankton in Association with Dungeness Crab (Cancer maqister) Larvae in California. 
In Life Histon/, Environment and Mariculture Studies of the Dunqeness Crab, Cancer maqister, with Emphasis on the Central California 
Fishen/ Resource. P.W. Wild and R.N. Tasto (eds). California DepartR)ent of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA Fish Bulletin No. 172. 

'^EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. 
San Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

'^CDFG/California Department of Fish and Game. 1980. Atlas of California Coastal Marine Resources. State of California Resources 
Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 

MEC/MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1993. Special Studies for Sand Mining Discharqes of the Tidewater Sand and Gravel 
Company. Prepared for Tidewater Sand and Gravel Company. November 1993. 



66 



PDEIR3 (April 18, 1996) 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



TABLE 5 FISH SPECIES FREQUENTLY CAPTURED FROM THE CENTRAL BAY 



American Shad (Alosa sapidlssima) 
Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasii) 
Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) 
Longfin snnelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) 
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 
Plainfin midshipman (Porichthys nototus) 
Jacksmelt (Atherinopsis californiensis) 
Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) 
White croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) 
Shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aaggregata) 
Bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus) 
Pacific pompano (Peprilus simillimus) 
Speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus) 
Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) 
English sole (Parophrys vetulus) 



Source: EPA, 1991. Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco 
Estuary Project. 

croaker, speckled sanddab, jacksmelt. Pacific herring, and longfin smelt, with seasonal 
incursions of bay goby and plainfin midshipman. Starry flounder are characteristic of shallow 
waters. 

Marine fish in San Francisco Bay can be divided into species that are seasonally present and 
those that maintain at least part of their population in the Bay year round. Northern anchovy are 

'^EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources ot the San Francisco Estuary. 
San Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

'Nbid. 



67 



PDEIR3 (April 18. 1996) 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

widely distributed and account for 80% of the fish in the Bay/' Eggs and larvae of this species 
are present in the Bay, indicating that all life stages utilize the Bay, but none stay year round. 
Likewise, Pacific herring, the second most abundant species, enter the Bay primarily for 
spawning, with adults present in high abundance only seasonally. Pacific herring begin to 
immigrate into the Bay in November, with spawning occurring from December to February.^' 

Other marine species that utilize the Bay as a nursery ground include starry flounder, English 
sole, speckled sanddab, and white croaker. Spawning occurs outside the Bay, then eggs and 
larvae enter the Bay via density-driven bottom currents and tidal forces.^^ Species that rely on 
these bottom currents for transport can be adversely affected when river outflow is low.^° 

Anadromous species that ascend from sea to rivers to spawn must pass through the Central 
Bay on their travel to the Delta, but only Chinook salmon occur regularly. This species travels 
through the deeper waters of Central Bay (outside of the project area) primarily from April to 
June.'^ 

BIRDS 

Species of birds that are characteristic of open water habitats in San Francisco Bay are listed in 
Table 6. The most abundant species are Clark's and Western grebes, Western gull, and 
American coot." Other common species include glaucous-winged gull, red-throated and 
common loons, horned grebe, California brown pelican, double-crested cormorant, and surf 
scoter. San Francisco Bay provides important habitats year round for over-wintering, breeding, 



Ibid. 
"Ibid. 

" Pearson, D.E. 1989. Survey of Fishes and Water Properties of South San Francisco Bay, California, 1973-82. NCAA Technical 
Report. National Marine Fisheries Service No. 78. 

Armor, C, and P.L Hen-geseli. 1985. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes in the San Francisco Bay Estuary Between 1980- 
1982. Hydrobioloqia 129: 211-227. 

^' EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. 
San Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

"Ibid. 



68 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

TABLE 6 OPEN WATER-HABITAT BIRDS OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY 



Red - throated loon (Gavia stellata) 

Common loon (Gavia immer) 

Horned grebe (Podiceps aurttus) 

Western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) 

Clark's grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii) 

California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) 

Double - crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 

Brandt's cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) 

Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagius) 

Scaupp spp. (Aythya spp). 

Surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) 

American coot (Fulica americana) 

Western gull (Larus occidentalis) 

Glaucous - winged gull (Larus glaucescens) 

Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) 

Forster's tern (Sterna forsteri) 



Source: EPA, 1991. Status and Trends Report on Wildlife of the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Project. 



and migratory species. Greatest species diversity occurs during fall and winter, and highest 
abundances coincide with the spring and fall migrations. 

Preferred habitat utilization in the Bay is both species dependent and seasonal. Wintering red- 
throated and common loons utilize deep, open waters, particularly in the Central Bay. Western 
and Clark's grebes are abundant wintering species that also use open bay waters with 
preference to narrows or islands in the Central Bay. Western gulls and most other gulls are 
abundant year round residents, foraging opportunistically throughout the Bay. Terns seasonally 
utilize open bay areas, breakwaters, and marshes. Scaup and scoters are the principal 
waterfowl in open water areas of the Central Bay. The American coot is an abundant species 
that is found throughout the Bay but has preference for open water and marshes. California 



69 



PDEIR3 (April 18. 1996) 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

brown pelicans are characteristic of rocl<y intertldal habitats of the Central Bay.^' 

Abundant nesting species in the Central Bay are the Western gull and double-crested cornnorant. 
Key breeding areas for these species are located at Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, San 
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, and Alcatraz Island. Although the California brown pelican does 
not nest in the area, San Francisco Bay is used by this species for foraging and roosting. 
Roosting locations in the Central Bay include Angel Island and Hunter's Point.^* 

MAMMALS 

Commonly occurring mammals in San Francisco Bay include the harbor seal {Phoca vitulina 
richardii) and California sea lion {Zaiophus calif ornianus), with estimated populations of 700 and 
600 animals, respectively." The Stellar sea lion {Eumetopias jubatus) has been sighted near 
Pier 39." 

Primary haulout sites for the harbor seal are located at Mowry Slough, Greco Island, Verba 
Buena Island, Castro Rocks near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and Corte Madera Ecological 
Reserve. Mowry Slough and Greco Island also serve as breeding grounds for this species. A 
principal haulout for the California sea lion is at the Pier 39 marina. This species does not 
breed in the Bay and is rarely obsen/ed in the area from May through July. Peak abundances of 
the California sea lion at Pier 39 occur in January and February,^^ coinciding with the Pacific 
herring spawn." Sea lions rest during the day and forage in open waters of the Central Bay 



^■'EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Wildlife of the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco 
Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. 
San Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

EPA/Environnnental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. 
San Francisco Estuary Project. Preapred under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Feldman, H. 1994. Monitoring Report: Seaplane Effects on Sea Lions at Pier 39. Conducted by the Marine Mammal Center, 
Marin Headlands, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausalito, CA. November 1994. 

"Ibid. 

^* CSLC/California State Lands Commission. 1994. CaliforniaT Comprehensive Offshore Resource Study. Volume I. 435pp. 



70 



PDEIR3 (April 18, 1996) 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

and the ocean at night. ^®Both the harbor seal and California sea lion have been observed in 
the project area but primarily haul out at Pier 39 floating docks. 

SENSITIVE SPECIES 

Common Loon 

The common loon (Gawa immer) is a California Species of Special Concern. This species 
forages on fish and, to a lesser degree, aquatic invertebrates. Prey are pursued and swallowed 
under water. ^° Common loons utilize the deep, open waters of the Central Bay. 

Double-crested Cormorant 

The double-crested cormorant {Phalacrocorax auritus) also is a California Species of Special 
Concern. This species forages in open waters for a variety of prey including flounder, smelt, 
surfperch, and shrimp.^^ The cormorant nests in the Central Bay; the nest site closest to the 
project area is Alcatraz Island. 

California Brown Pelican 

The California brown pelican {Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) is a federal and state-listed 
endangered species. Brown pelicans roost on land at night and forage in shallow waters during 
the day. Anchovies are the preferred food of the brown pelican." Roosting locations in the 
Central Bay include Angel Island. None have been recorded in the project area. 



^'Feldman, H. 1994. Monitoring Report: Seaplane Effects on Sea Lions at Pier 39. Conducted by the Marine Mammal Center, 
Marin Headlands, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausalito, CA. November 1994. 

^"Ehriich, P.R., D.S. Dobbin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of Nonh Amencan 
Birds. 

MMS/Minerals Management Service. 1984. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Volume I, Proposed 1983 Outer Continental 
Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Offering Santa Barbara Channel. OCS Sale No. 80. December 1983. 

"Jaques, D.L, and D.W. Anderson. 1987. Final Report. Conservation Implications of Habitat Use and Behavior of Wintering Brown 
Pelicans Pelecanus occidentalis californicus. Submitted to the Public Service Research and Dissemination Program. University of 
California, Davis. 



71 



PDEIR3 (April 18, 1996) 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



Stellar Sea Lion 

The Stellar sea lion {Eumetopias jubatus) is listed as federally threatened. Stellar sea lion 
breeding occurs fronn mid-May to the end of June at locations including the Farallon Islands and 
Ano Nuevo Island.^^ This species has been sighted intermittently at Pier 39.'* 



^■'Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1994. Life on the Edge: A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources. Volume I. Wildlife. C.G. 
Thelander (ed.). 550pp. 

^* Feldman, H. 1994. Monitoring Report: Seaplane Effects on Sea Lions at Pier 39. Conducted by the Marine Mammal Center, 
Marin Headlands, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausatito, CA. November 1994. 



72 



PDEIR3 (April 18, 1996) 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 

D. PUBLIC UTILITIES 

SEWER AND STORMWATER SERVICES 

The combined sewer system in tlie City carries both municipal and Industrial wastewater and intercepted 
storm runoff in the same sewer pipes. On the east side of the City, the City owns and operates two 
wastewater pollution control plants along the Bay, which discharge the treated effluent to the Bay. 

The Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (SEWPCP) is located on Jerrold Avenue between Quint Street 
and Phelps Street. Secondary-treated dry weather effluent from SEWPCP is discharged to the Bay through 
the Pier 80 Outfall, located east of the Army Street Pier. The SEWPCP treats about 85 million gallons per 
day (mgd) of sewage during dry weather, including all flows from the waterfront and the project area. 

The North Point Water Pollution Control Plant (NPWPCP) is located on Bay and Kearney Streets at the 
Embarcadero. It is a primary treatment facility, with a capacity of 150 mgd, and only operates during wet 
weather. Treated effluent is discharged through two outfalls located under Pier 33 and two outfalls under 
Pier 45. Stormwater from the project area is treated at NPWPCP during heavy rains when treatment 
capacity of the SEWPCP (about 210 mgd) is exceeded. 

Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 are located within the Northshore Consolidation drainage basin, which 
includes seven wet weather overflow points to the Bay. During especially heavy rains, untreated wet weather 
runoff in excess of the treatment plant capacity discharges to the Bay at the following locations: to the west 
of the proposed project are outfalls located at Baker Street, Pierce Street, Laguna Street, and Beach Street; 
to the east of the proposed project are outfalls located at Sansome Street and Jackson Street. The 
NPDES^ Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board allows an average of four overflows 
to the Bay per year at each of these locations.^ The locations are shown on Figure 12. 



' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pemnit, which is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to facilitios 
which discharge effluent to public waters. The permit specifies allowable limits tor pollutants in the effluent. 

^ Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number 95-039, NPDES Permit Number CA0038610, Reissuing Waste Discharge 
Requirements for City and County of San Francisco, Bayside Wet Weather Facilities, February 15, 1995 



73 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 




STORM WATER 
OVERFLOW LOCATIONS 



.50 1.0 . 2.0 

- CD ■ 



4.0 MILES 



FIGURE NO. 12 



SOURCE; PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 74 



T 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 



Sewer mains in tiie proposed project area are typically three-foot by five-foot oval brick mains over 100 
years old. Other materials used to construct the mains include glazed clay, vitrified clay, reinforced concrete 
and polyethylene. Some sections of pipe have been retrofitted with plastic liners. The existing system has 
no apparent problems handling the dry weather flows. Jefferson Street is served by a modified 51 -inch 
reinforced concrete pipe sewer line that tapers to a 45-inch reinforced concrete pipe.^ The piers have no 
stormwater drainage connections to the City sewer system. Several locations along Fish Alley have drains 
in the paved pier that drain directly to the Bay. 

Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, rehabilitation work was required on existing utility systems. 
Under the FEMA grant to complete earthquake repairs in the area, some improvements to the infrastructure 
were completed in 1994 to bring the Pier into code compliance. These improvements included: installation 
of a six-inch sewer force main along Pier 45 to the 51 -inch sewer line under Jefferson Street; installation 
of drains, floor sinks and solids separators in each lease area for the fish handling in Sheds B and D; and 
installation of two 4,000-gallon oil/water separators for stormwater runoff located under the paved surface 
on Pier 45 between Sheds A and C. Runoff from the sheds roofs and parking area is directed to the valley, 
then to the oil/water separator. From the separator, the water flows to the Bay. The solids interceptor and 
separator sinks are connected to a sump, which connects to the six-inch sewer line along the pier.* as 
shown in Figure 13. 



^ Communication with Henry Anderson, City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public WofVs. February 15. 1990. 
* Personal interview with Ed Bubnis, Chief Building Inspector, Port of San Francisco, June 12, 1995. 

75 



SCREEN 
BASKET 

4' ANCHOR BOLT 
SP. - TYP 



INLET NO-HUB 



WIDE FLANGE 



COVER 




2" VENT NO-HUB 
LOCATION OPTIONAL 



4" OUTLET NO-HUB 




52 32 




1/4"-316 S.S. HEAVY-DUTY 
COVER SEALED MTH HEAVY 
DUTY , GASKET ic BOLTED IN 
PLACE WITH 316 S.S. BOLTS 

4" FLANGE 
NEW OVERLAY- TYP 

CO 



2" VENT MIN. 12" ABOVE 
INLET INVERT 

1/4" 316 S.S. PLATE 

OUTLET 

OUTLET INVERT 3" BELOW 
INLET INVERT 



BOLTED IN PLACE SCREEN 
12 X 12 X 18" HI REMOVABLE 
BASKET WITH HOLE FOR INLET, 
it SUPPORT LEGS ' 



SOUDS INTERCEPTOR AND SEPARATOR 
SINKS IN SHEDS B AND D 



FIGURE NO. 13 



SOURCE; PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 76 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 



WATER SUPPLY SERVICES 

The San Francisco Water Department stores and distributes potable water for domestic use and fire 
protection within San Francisco and also sells water to public and private water companies serving San 
Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara counties. Water for residential and business uses in San Francisco is 
distributed through low-pressure mains from eleven operating City reservoirs.^ Water service within the 
proposed project area is supplied from the 140.9 million gallon University Mound Reservoir, on University 
and Bacon Streets near McLaren Park.® 

The Water Department's capital improvement program calls for improving the water supply system on a 
continuous basis. Older mains with leal<age problems are targeted for replacement. The repair schedule 
is decided at the beginning of the fiscal year and often coincides with street resurfacing plans. There is no 
currently scheduled work in the area of the proposed project, although there has been some water supply 
system main replacement in the vicinity over the last few years. ^ 

The water distribution system in the City generally withstood the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. Main 
pipeline breaks occurred in the Marina district due to liquefaction of Bay mud and of uncompacted fills 
dating from the 1930's. Even though much of the Fisherman's Wharf area is also on fill, main pipeline 
breaks did not occur there during the earthquake.® 

The proposed project area is served by an 8-inch water main along Jefferson Street, which tapers to a six- 
inch main west of Hyde Street. There is a six-inch main along Taylor Street to Pier 45 and a four-inch water 
main in Jones Alley, which tapers to a two-inch water main along Pier 47.^ 



^ Personal interview with Joe Pelayo, Jr., Section Head, San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Division, Engineering, June 
7, 1995. 

* Personal interview with Bhulabha Desai, Civil Engineer, San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Diviston, Eng(neenng. 
June 7, 1995. 

^ Personal interview with Joe Pelayo, Jr, Section Head, San Francisco Water Departnr)ent, Distribution Division, Engineerir>g, Jurw 
7, 1995. 

* Personal interview with Steven I. Van Dyke, Superintendent, San Francisco Fire Department, Bureau ol Engineenng and Water 
Supply, June 16, 1995. 

' Personal interview with Bhulabhai Desai, Civil Engineer, San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Division, Engineering. 
June 7, 1995. 

77 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 



E. PUBLIC SERVICES 

POLICE SERVICES 

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) provides police protection to the City and all waters within 
the City's jurisdiction. This would include waters such as the Harbor at Pier 45. The U.S. Coast Guard has 
criminal jurisdiction only over crimes that occur beyond the breakwater. Crimes that occur on moored 
vessels or boats that are underway are outside of Coast Guard jurisdiction.^ 

SFPD patrol functions are performed out of ten district stations. The proposed project is within the 
jurisdiction of the Central District, which extends from Geary and Larkin Streets, north on Larkin to Aquatic 
Park, east and south along the Bay to Market Street, and Market Street to the intersection of Geary and 
Larkin Streets.^ The densely populated neighborhoods and the daily influx of business people and tourists 
create congestion and a high demand for police services in the District.^ 

Central Station is located on the ground floor of a five-story public parking garage at 766 Vallejo Street 
between Stockton and Powell Streets, about one mile from the project area. A 1987 study recommended 
Central Station be relocated, but due to citizen demands and budget constraints, that it not likely to 
happen.-^ 

Since May 1994, there has been police office space at the Wharfinger's Office near the Inner Harbor for an 
officer from the Central Station. This space has not yet been staffed. There is also a Port police officer 
stationed in the Ferry Building who responds to on-going police issues at the piers.^® 



'Telephone conversation with Sergeant Dan Greeley, Central Station, San Francisco Police Department, June 7, 1995. 
^ Ibid. 

^ The Central District originally included an additional fourteen square blocks in the Tenderloin area, which has the highest rate 
of major crimes in the City. That area was assigned to the Tenderloin Task Force approximately three years ago and is no kjnger 
within the Central District. 

* Telephone conversation viflth Sergeant Dan Greeley, Central Station, San Francisco Police Department, June 7, 1995. 
' Personal interview with John Davies, Wharfinger, June 16, 1995. 

* Telephone conversation with Officer John Purenti, San Francisco Port Police, January 11, 1996. 



78 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 



The police boat is bertliecl at South Beach Harbor. It is manned by a volunteer staff, operating under the 
Special Operations Group. It is staffed for special events, such as the Fourth of July and Opening Day on 
the Bay, and as directed by the Chief.' 

The Central District includes 42 reporting areas or plots. In 1994, the three plots that compose the area that 
includes Hyde Street Harbor, Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 45 reported a total number of 344 incidents which 
involved a police report. Major crimes that are reported include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, 
theft and auto theft. Of the crimes reported in the three plots surrounding the project area in 1 994, 60 
percent of the calls related to theft and grand theft. The entire Central District reported 15,843 incidents 
in 1994. For the first quarter of 1995, the three Central District plots surrounding the project area reported 
47 incidents, with 36 percent being grand theft.^ 

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 

The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) provides fire protection within the City limits. In the Fisherman's 
Wharf area, the Port of San Francisco Fire Marshall conducts pier inspections and investigates fires, 
hazardous materials incidents and other emergencies occurring on Port property. The U. S. Coast Guard 
responds to incidents at sea and assists the SFFD along the waterfront when called upon. The SFFD 
Fireboat is berthed at Pier 22-1 /2. 

Normal response to a fire within the project area would include 3 engines, 2 trucks, a rescue squad, a Fire 
Chief and an Assistant Chief. These services would be provided from nearby stations. The first stations to 
respond to a fire in the project area would be ^ 



^Telephone conversation with Sergeant Dan Greeley, Central Station, San Francisco Police Department, June 7. 1995. 
'Communication with Officer Janet Lacampagne, San Francisco Police Department Planning Division. June 22, 1995. 
'Telephone conversation with Lt. Paul Fuhrman, San Francisco Fire Department Business Office, June 8, 1995. 



Engine No. 28 
Engine No. 2 
Engine No. 41 



1814 Stockton Street 



1340 Powell Street 



1325 Leavenworth 



79 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 



Truck No. 2 



1340 Powell Street 



Truck No. 13 



530 Sansome Street 



Rescue Squad 
Division 2 Chief 



Third and Howard Streets 



1301 Turk Street 



Battalion 1 Assistant Chief 



1340 Powell Street 



Fire Boat 



Pier 22-1/2 



Typical first response times are 3.8 nriinutes for the first engine. Fire truck response time is slightly longer 
and averages approximately 5 minutes.^" 

As part of the 1989 Seismic Bond Program and the 1992 Fire Department Improvement Bond Program, 
several fire stations are undergoing seismic strengthening and facility upgrades. Fire Station No. 2, located 
at 1340 Powell Street was rebuilt from the ground up under this program and opened approximately one 
year ago.^^ 

The Bureau of Engineering and Water Supply is responsible for the management, operation and 
maintenance of the water supply systems used for firefighting. The Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) 
is an independent, high-pressure, fresh-water water supply system used for fire suppression and the service 
area extends into the Fisherman's Wharf area.^^ 

Since the wharf and project area are on infirm ground, no cisterns are located in the area. The Bay is used 
as a water source for the AWSS. Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Pier are served by three suction hydrants that 
the Fire Department checks monthly and services annually. They are located on the west side of the Hyde 
Street Pier; near Scoma's Restaurant; and on the north side of Jefferson Street at Jones Street (at the Inner 
Lagoon). In addition to the suction hydrants, there are three AWSS high pressure hydrants in the project 
area: at Leavenworth Street (north side of Jefferson Street); at Jones Street (south side of Jefferson Street); 
and on the north side of Jefferson Street (half way between Jones and Leavenworth Streets). The AWSS 
system pump station is located at the foot of Van Ness Avenue, near the Municipal Pier. The pump station 
was overhauled in 1986 as part of a bond issue. There is a also a fireboat manifold at the foot of 



'"Telephone conversation with Lt. Paul Fuhrman, San Francisco Fire Department Business Office, June 8, 1995. 
" San Francisco Fire Department Annual Report 1992 - 1993, June 1, 1994. 
'^San Francisco Fire Department Annual Report 1992 - 1993, June 1, 1994. 



80 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 



Leavenworth Street (Richard Henry Dana Street). This manifold has ten three-inch connections.^^ There 
Is a fire alarm box along the Pier near Scoma's Restaurant. 

In addition, there are low-pressure fire hydrants that access the municipal water supply at several locations 
in the proposed project area.^* Currently, the sheds on Pier 45 are served by fire sprinklers and low 
pressure hydrants. 



'^Personal interview with Steven I. Van Dyke, Superintendent, San Francisco, Bureau ol Engineering and Water Supply. June 
16, 1995. 



14 Personal interview with Bhulabhai Desai, Civil Engineer, San Francisco Water Department, Distnbution Division, Engineenng. June 
7, 1995. 



81 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 



F. AIR QUALITY 
METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATE 

The Bay area's climate, as with all of Califomia coastal environs, is dominated by the strength 
and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It 
creates cod summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall; it drives the cod daytime sea breeze 
and maintains comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. Temperatures in the San Francisco 
area average 57 degrees Fahrenheit annually, ranging from the mid-40s on winter mornings to 
the mid-70s in late summer afternoons. The strong onshore flow of wind in summer keeps cod 
air and frequent cloudiness over the Bay area until September when the offshore Pacific high 
pressure center weakens and migrates southward. Warmest temperatures generally occur in 
September and October. Temperature extremes, reaching 90 degrees or dropping to freezing, 
are rare in San Francisco. Rainfall in San Francisco averages 21 inches per year and is 
confined primarily to the "wet" season from late October to early May. Except for occasional 
light drizzles from thick marine stratus clouds, summers are almost completely dry. 

Winds in the project area display several characteristic regimes. During the day, especially in 
summer, winds are from the southwest-west at 10 to 14 miles per hour as air is funneled through 
the Golden Gate. At night, especially in winter, the land becomes cooler than the water and an 
offshore flow off the hills develops over portions of the area. In San Francisco, however, the 
marine intrusion is so strong that the onshore flow persists both day and night during the 
warmer months. On the north side of San Francisco in both winter and summer, the 
background pollution upwind from the project area is generally sufficiently low such that the 
project area experiences excellent air quality and rarely exceeds clean air standards. 

Based on the monthly climatic conditions as determined from long-term measurements at the 
downtown Federal Building, the following general clinnatic conditions occur at the project site: 

• Sunniest and warmest conditions occur from June to September. The same time period 
experiences average daily wind speeds from the west greater than ten miles per hour, 
blowing almost 24 hours per day. During the daytime during summer months, windspeeds 
are even higher, with winds coming from the direction of Aquatic Park toward Pier 45. 



82 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

• The warmest months in San Francisco are September and October when the onshore flow 
weakens as the Central Valley cools down. Average wind speeds during the warmest 
months with warmest air and water temperatures are still west to east, with average speeds 
of greater than eight miles per hour. 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national ambient air quality standards, and 
individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other 
pollutant species. California already had standards in existence before federal standards were 
established, and because of the unique meteorological conditions in the state, there is 
considerable diversity between state and federal standards currently in effect in California as 
shown in Appendix C, Table AQ-1 . 

The ambient air quality standards are the levels of air quality considered safe to protect the 
public health and welfare and incorporate an adequate margin of safety. They are designed to 
protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, known as sensitive 
receptors, such as asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weak from other illness or 
disease, or persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate 
occasional exposure to air pollution levels somewhat above the ambient air quality standards 
before adverse health effects are observed. 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional monitoring 
network which measures the ambient concentration of six air pollutants: ozone, carbon 
monoxide, fine particulate matter (inhalable- or respirable-sized particles), lead, nitrogen dioxide, 
and sulfur dioxide. On the basis of the monitoring data, the Bay Area, including the City and 
County of San Francisco, is designated an "attainment" area with respect to federal air quality 
standards. Air quality attainment means that state standards are met as required by the 
California Clean Air Act (AB-2595). San Francisco occasionally experiences violations of state 
eight-hour carbon monoxide and particulate matter standards, but has not recently violated the 
ozone standard. State ozone standards are exceeded in portions of the Bay Area Air Basin, 
especially the Santa Clarita and Livermore valleys. 



83 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

Existing and probable future levels of air quality in San Francisco can be generally inferred from 
ambient air quality measurements conducted by the BAAQMD at its two San Francisco air 
monitoring stations. The Potrero Hill station at 10 Arkansas Street measures all criteria 
pollutants, Including regional pollutants such as ozone, as well as primary vehicular pollutants 
near busy roadways such as carbon monoxide. The station at 939 Ellis Street at the BAAQMD 
headquarters measures only carbon monoxide. Appendix C, Table AQ-2 summarizes the last six 
years of published data (1988 to 1993) from these monitoring stations. Final data for 1994 are 
not yet available as of March 1996. During this six-year period, there were no violations of the 
one-hour or eight-hour carbon monoxide standards at the Arkansas Street monitoring station. 
The state particulate matter standard was violated five days out of 61 measurement days in 
1993, compared to nine days out of 61 measurement days in 1992. At the Ellis Street 
monitoring station, the carbon monoxide standard was violated once in 1988, and the ozone, 
nitrogen dioxide, and particulate sulfate measurements were within the allowable maximum 
concentrations for the six-year period. 

Comparison of these data with those from other BAAQMD monitoring stations indicates that San 
Francisco's air quality is among the least degraded of all developed portions of the Bay area. 
Three of the four prevailing winds (west, northwest, and west-northwest) blowing off the Pacific 
Ocean reduce the potential for San Francisco to receive air pollutants from elsewhere in the 
region. 

Data from air quality monitoring in San Francisco show that there have been infrequent local 
exceedences of state and federal carbon monoxide and inhalable particulate matter standards, 
largely due to air pollutant emissions from within the City. Carbon monoxide is a non-reactive 
air pollutant, the major source of which is motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide concentrations are 
generally highest during periods of peak traffic congestion. The last violation of the carbon 
monoxide standard in the City was in 1 988. 

The primary sources of particulates in San Francisco are construction and demolition, 
combustion of fuels for heating, and vehicle travel over paved roads. Airborne dust levels 
measured in San Francisco show occasional violations of the state inhalable particulate 
standards, and maximum particulate levels have decreased slightly over the six-year period from 
1988 to 1993. In general, particulate levels are relatively low near the coast, increase with 

84 



ill. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

increasing distance from the coast, and peai< in dry, sheltered valleys. One federal standard 
violation occurred in 1990, though federal guidelines allow for no more than one violation per 
year averaged over a three-year period in defining a "non-attainment" area. 

SOURCES OF EMISSIONS 

The automobile and other mobile sources are the dominant contributors to the regional pollution 
burden for nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. These sources also contribute a substantial 
fraction of reactive organic gases, the other important precursor to regional smog formation. 
Table 7 summarizes the air basin pollution inventory for 1991 which is the current attainment 
planning inventory. 

On-road emission sources, of which existing travel to and from Fisherman's Wharf is a small 
fraction of all regional travel, generate 24 percent of all reactive organic gases, 53 percent of 
nitrogen oxides, and 67 percent of all regional carbon monoxide emissions. Ship emissions, 
which include the current commercial fishing vessels at Pier 45, contribute less than two percent 
of reactive organic gases, less than three percent of nitrogen oxides, and less than four percent 
of all basinwide carbon monoxide emissions. 



85 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 



TABLE 7. BAY AREA AIR BASIN EMISSIONS INVENTORY, 1991 (tons/day) 



Emission Source 


Inhalable 


Reactive 


Nitrogen 


Sulfur 


Carbon 




Particulate 


Organic 


Oxides 


Oxides 


Monoxide 






Gases 








Industrial Processes 


197 


59 


52 


55 


35 


Evaporative Emissions 




118 








Combustion of Fuels 


35 


21 


106 


15 


216 


Total Stationary Sources 


232 


198 


158 


70 


251 


Cars & Picl<-up Trucks 


25 


137 


144 


8 


1100 


Other On-Road 


25 


63 


147 


19 


529 


Ships, Boats & Trains 


1 


20 


16 


18 


82 


Aircraft 


3 


17 


16 


1 


75 


Off-Road Equipment 


5 


27 


69 


6 


342 


Total Mobile Sources 


59 


264 


392 


52 


2128 


TOTAL MISC. SOURCES 


753 


351 


1 




50 


TOTAL ALL SOURCES 


1044 


819 


551 


122 


2429 



Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1993. Air Quality Handbook. 

Appendix IV. 



86 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

The 1977 Clean Air Act required that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare 
a regional Air Quality Plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources 
of pollutants can be controlled in order to achieve all standards within the deadlines specified in 
the Clean Air Act. For the Bay Area Air Basin, the Association of Bay Area Governments 
(ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the BAAQMD jointly prepared 
a Bay Area Air Quality Plan in 1982 which predicted attainment of all national clean air standards 
within the basin by 1987. Although air quality improvements were made, the Bay Area failed to 
attain national and state ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide and ozone by 1987. 
However, by 1994, regional air quality monitoring data indicated that the Bay Area had attained 
the national ozone and carbon monoxide standards and the state carbon monoxide standard. 

In June 1995, the U.S. EPA designated the Bay Area as an attainment area with respect to the 
national ozone standard. The BAAQMD has applied to the U.S. EPA for attainment status for 
carbon monoxide since none of the regional monitoring stations has recorded an exceedance of 
the national standard since 1991. However, the Bay Area has not yet been granted official 
federal designation as an attainment area with respect to carbon monoxide.^ Under the federal 
Clean Air Act, regions that have attained air quality standards still must demonstrate how they 
will maintain compliance with the federal standards in future years. Therefore, the BAAQMD has 
developed Maintenance Plans for the Bay Area for ozone and carbon monoxide. For inhalaWe 
particulate matter, the basin is "unclassified" at present, awaiting a possible revision of 
particulate standards to include only very fine particulate matter. 

With respect to the more stringent state ambient air quality standards, the Bay Area Air Basin is 
currently a "non-attainment" area for ozone and inhalable particulate matter standards. The 
1988 California Clean Air Act (AB-2595) required development of air quality plans and strategies 
to reduce ozone and carbon monoxide levels in the Bay Area. As a result, a more recent Bay 
Area Clean Air Plan was prepared in 1994, with the main objective of attaining the state ozone 



' Henry Hilken, Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Telephone comnxjnication with Joyce Hsiao. Onon 
Environnnental Asociates, March 1996. 



87 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

Standard. Attainment of the California ozone standard in the Bay Area has not yet occurred, 
since emissions reductions as required by the Clean Air Plan are partially offset by new 
emissions from population and industry growth in the basin. 

The 1994 Bay Area Clean Air Plan contains specific measures aimed to reduce indirect sources 
of emissions, including transportation control measures designed to reduce the contribution of 
the automobile as the single-most important contributor to degraded air quality. Any project 
which attracts a substantial increase in automobile traffic or marine vessel activity may have an 
effect on air quality planning if the associated emissions have not been accounted for in the 
regional air quality plan. 

Currently, there are no existing state requirements regulating air pollutant emissions from fishing 
boats. However, the State Implementation Plan includes measures calling for marine vessels to 
meet the federal standards for nitrogen oxide emissions. The Plan Indicates that reduction in 
nitrogen oxide emissions from marine vessels could be achieved by the year 2005.^ 

ODOR REGULATION 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulates odor emissions in San Francisco under 
the District's Odor Regulation (Regulation 7) and the Public Nuisance laws (California Health 
and Safety Code, Section 41700). Regulation 7 places general limitations on odorous 
substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds; in addition, if the 
District receives and confirms odor complaints from ten or more members of the public within a 
90-day period, the District has the authority to collect an air sample and can issue a violation 
notice. Under the Public Nuisance regulation, five confirmed odor complaints within a 24-hour 
period is considered a violation and would initiate action by the BAAQMD with the originator of 
the odor source to determine if the odor can be reduced.^ In the Fisherman's Wharf area, there 
have been no odor complaints within the last year.* 



^ Telephone communication with Jackie Lourenco, Manager of Off-Road Conti'ol Section, California Air Resources 
Board with Joyce Hsiao, Orion Environmental Associates, June 12, 1995. 

^ Telephone convnunication with Joe Steinberger, Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District with Joyce Hsiao, 
Orion Environmental Associates, June 12, 1995, and Bay Area Air Quality Management Distiict pamphlet entitled 
"Odors." 

* Telephone communication with Jim Ting, Area Inspector.'Bay Area Air Quality Management District with Evelyn 
Shellenberg, Orion Environmental Associates, January 12, 1996. 



88 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 

G. TRANSPORTATION 

This section describes the existing conditions of the transportation system in the vicinity of the 
proposed project. Included are the roadway system traffic operations, transit service, parking, 
pedestrian circulation and access, truck traffic and safety conditions. 

The transportation study area is bounded by Hyde Street to the west, San Francisco Bay to the 
north and east, and Beach Street to the South. The transportation study area and intersections 
that were analyzed are shown in Figure 14. 

A network of highways and major arterials provide direct access between the project study area 
and other destinations in the city and region. Regional access to the project site is provided by 
three freeways: U.S. 101 to the north via Van Ness Avenue and Lombard Street, Interstate 80 to 
the East Bay and Central Valley via The Embarcadero, U.S. 101/1-280 to the Peninsula and the 
South Bay via Van Ness Avenue. 

Most of the traffic coming into the study area arrives via The Embarcadero. The Embarcadero is 
defined in the City's Master Plan as a major arterial and a recreational street west of North Point 
Street. The Embarcadero east of North Point Street is included in the Congestion Management 
Program. As defined by the City's Master Plan, Transit Preferential Streets within the study area 
include Jefferson, Beach and Hyde Streets (south of Beach Street). In addition to the The 
Embarcadero, Jefferson and Beach Streets are designated recreational streets. Local streets 
providing access within the study area include Leavenworth, Jones, Mason and Powell Streets. 

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 

Operating characteristics of intersections are described by the use of the level of sen/ice (LOS) 
concept. The Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's performance t>ased 
on delay per vehicle. Intersection Level of Service ranges from LOS A. which indicates free flow 



89 




90 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



or excellent conditions, to LOS F, wliich Indicates jammed or overloaded conditions. Refer to 
Appendix D for more detailed description of the LOS designations for intersections. 

Signalized intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 
TRB, 1985, intersection analysis method. Unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the 
Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, TRB, 1985 operations methodology for 
intersection delay, outlined in Chapter 10. This method determines the capacity of each 
movement of the intersection. Level of Service is then based on the average total delay per 
vehicle for each movement. Level of Service for unsignalized intersections ranges from LOS A, 
which is generally free-flow conditions with minor delays for minor street traffic, to LOS F, which 
indicates very long delays for the minor street traffic. 

Traffic conditions in the study area were characterized by examining peak-hour operations 
during weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as the weekend midday peak hour, at five 
intersections within the study area. All the analysis intersections in the study area operate at 
LOS A or B during the weekday and weekend peak hours, indicating that most traffic flows in 
the study area do not experience excessive delays. The intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero and the intersection of Jefferson/Taylor experience the highest levels of 
congestion. Weekend traffic volumes are higher than weekday volumes, and the levels of 
congestion are also somewhat higher during the weekend. 

TRANSIT SERVICES 

Within the study area, the City's Master Plan designates Jefferson Street, Beach Street, and 
Hyde Street (south of Beach Street) as Transit Preferential Streets. A transit preferential street is 
defined as a street where transit vehicles could receive priority treatment for the use of street 
right-of-way. Transit service in the study area includes San Francisco MUNI bus lines and cable 
cars, Golden Gate Transit bus lines, and a number of ferry operators. 

There are six existing MUNI lines directly serving the study area. #19, #30, #32, #39, #42 and 
#15. Figure 15 shows the routes of these six lines and the bus stop locations. Table 8 
summarizes bus route descriptions, sen/ice frequencies and load factors. 



91 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



In order to achieve an efficient transit system, MUNI's goal is to not exceed the peak load factor 
standards for each type of transit vehicle. The peak load factor is defined as the ratio of 
passengers to seats during the peak hour. When the passenger to seat ratio exceeds 1 .00, the 
transit vehicle is operating with patrons exceeding the seating capacity and with patrons 
standing in the aisle. The peak load factor for lines operating with motor coaches is 1 .55 and for 
cable car lines, the optimal peak load factor is 2.0. Since the load factors presented below are 
based on ridership levels at the route's maximum load point, they may be lower in the vicinity of 
the project site. All bus lines operate with excess capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. 



Table 8 MUNI Transit Routes 



Bus Route 
19 


Route Description 
Polk 


Headways (minutes) 

10 (AM peak) 15 (PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


Peak Load Factor 
(Weekday) 
1 .66 (AM peak) 
1.14 (PM peak) 


30 


Stockton 


4 (weekday AM & PM peak) 
6 (weekend midday) 


1 .38 (AM peak) 
1.42 (PM peak) 


32 


Embarcadero 


12 (weekday AM & PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


0.73 (AM peak) 
1.00 (PM peak) 


39 


Coit Tower to Northern 
Waterfront 


30 (AM peak) 20 (PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


0.12 (AM peak) 
0.50 (PM peak) 


42 


Downtown Loop 


9 (weekday AM & PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


1 .39 (AM peak) 
1.25 (PM peak) 


15 


Third Street Crosstown 


5 (AM peak) 6 (PM peak) 
10 (weekend midday) 


1 .39 (AM peak) 
1.15 (PM peak) 


Powell-Hyde 
Cable Car 


Powell & Market to 
Hyde & Beach 


10 (AM peak) 6 (PM peak) 
6 (weekend midday) 


0.92 (AM peak) 
2.22 (PM peak) 



Source: Korve Engineering, Inc. 



93 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



Two cable car routes serve the Fisherman's Wharf area, connecting with the Union Street retail 
and hotel district. The Powell-Hyde Street cable car operates within the study area's western 
boundary and terminates north of the intersection of Beach and Hyde Streets. The Powell- 
Mason line terminates outside of the study area south of Bay Street on Taylor Street. In general, 
during the weekday PM and weekend midday peak periods, the cable cars operate at full 
capacity. 

Golden Gate Transit, serving Marin County, travels through the study area and shares MUNI bus 
stops on Beach Street, and on North Point Street just south of the study area. Two basic bus 
routes and 19 commuter hour express bus lines provide sen/ices in the study area. Only 
aiightings are allowed from Golden Gate Transit buses destined to San Francisco from Marin 
and Sonoma Counties, and conversely, only boardings are allowed onto Golden Gate buses 
destined to Marin and Sonoma Counties from San Francisco. 

Ferry service to the study area is provided by a number of ferry operators between Pier 39 and 
Pier 43-1/2. Service includes the Red and White fleet sen/ice between Pier 43-1 /2 and 
Sausalito, Tiburon and Angel Island, and the Blue and Gold Service between Pier 39 and Vallejo, 
and also between Pier 39 and Oakland/Alameda. In addition, the Red and White fleet provides 
ferry service to Alcatraz from Pier 41 . The ferry service at Fisherman s Wharf is generally 
recreational service, as commute service is provided to the Ferry Building, located at the foot of 
Market Street in downtown San Francisco. 

PARKING FACILITIES AND USE 

Off-Street Parking 

Nineteen parking facilities within the study area were surveyed in February 1995. A total of 3,850 
spaces are available at these off-street parking facilities, of which 461 are private parking spaces, 
and 3,389 are public parking spaces. The midday off-street parking occupancy for the study 
area is higher on weekends than on weekdays. The average occupancy rate for all facilities is 
56% for the weekday midday peak period, and 74% for the weekend midday peak period. 



94 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 

The average occupancy rates for the public facilities are 55% and 74% for the weekday and 
weekend peak periods, respectively, and 66% and 73% for the private facilities for the weekday 
and weekend peak period, respectively. Some of the public parking facilities, such as the Pier & 
Wharf Parking on Beach Street and Fisherman Wharf Parking surface lot have higher occupancy 
rates (92% - 106%) during the weekends than other facilities due to their proximity to major 
tourist attractions. 

On-Street Parking 

On-street parking is permitted within the study area, however, much of the on-street parking is 
restricted for special purposes, such as tour bus parking and truck loading/unloading, or limited 
to two-hour metered parking. An on-street parking survey was conducted to determine early 
morning and afternoon parking activity. From the hours of 5:00 to 8:00 AM, the on-street 
parking on Jefferson Street between Taylor and Hyde Streets is fully utilized by delivery trucks 
and the trucks that are part of the commercial fish trading. By midmorning, curb parking is 
generally fully occupied by visitors and employees, and a number of vehicles were observed 
illegally parked in No Parking zones, in driveways and between meters. 

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 

The project study area is within the heart of the tourist area of Fisherman's Wharf. Nearly all 
access to businesses and attractions at the Wharf is made by walking, either from cable cars, 
buses, parked autos or nearby hotels. In the study area, The Embarcadero, Jefferson Street and 
Beach Street are designated in the Master Plan as recreational streets, and in addition to Taylor 
Street, are the major pedestrian routes in the area. (A recreational street is a special category of 
street, whose major function is to provide for slow pleasure drivers, cyclists and pedestrian use.) 
Pedestrian activity levels are generally light in the morning, and increase following the opening of 
stores between 9:00 and 10:00 AM. 

Weekday and weekend midday peak hour pedestrian counts were conducted on March 16 and 
25, 1995 for ail the four crosswalks at the intersection of Taylor Street and Jefferson Street The 



95 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



existing LOS for these crosswalks was calculated using the methodology outlined in Chapter 13 
of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The intersection of Jefferson/Taylor is located in the 
center of the entire Fisherman's Wharf tourist district. The total pedestrian volumes during the 
weekend peak 15-minute period are approximately 1.4 times higher than the weekday volumes. 

Operating conditions on crosswalks are measured by pedestrian density, square feet of 
crosswalk space per pedestrian (sq.ft. /ped). Typically, an upper limit for desirable conditions Is 
15 sq.ft/ped or LOS D. The LOS is presented for "maximum surge" conditions, which 
represent the conditions at opposing ends of the crosswalk when the WALK phase begins as 
two opposing platoons simultaneously step onto the crosswalks. 

Weekday Midday Conditions: During the weekday midday peak 15-minute period, the four 
crosswalks experience LOS B (south and west crosswalks), and LOS (north and east 
crosswalks) conditions. 

Weel<end Midday Conditions: During the weekend midday peak 15-minute period, the level-of- 
service for all four crosswalks changes noticeably from weekday midday conditions. The LOS at 
the south crosswalk worsens from LOS B to C, whereas the north and west crosswalks 
experience LOS D. The east crosswalk, with the heaviest pedestrian volumes operates at LOS 
E. This indicates that the capacity of the crosswalk is reached and there is limited space to 
pass slower pedestrians. 

In the immediate vicinity of Pier 45, on Taylor Street between The Embarcadero and Jefferson 
Street, and on The Embarcadero between Taylor Street and Powell Street, pedestrian activity 
levels are congested during the weekday and weekend midday peak periods. This is due 
primarily to the restaurants on the west side of Taylor Street, which essentially "extend" their 
operations onto the sidewalks, and the tour bus drop-off and pickup activities on the north curb 
of The Embarcadero (the south side does not have any sidewalks). During the midday peak 
periods, pedestrian traffic on the north sidewalk was obsen/ed to be slow moving (typical of 
tourist activities) and congested. 



96 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



TRUCK TRAFFIC 
Truck Percentages 

Vehicle classification counts were conducted at the five study intersections, and at the 
intersection of The Embarcadero and Taylor Street, to determine the percentage of trucks during 
the peak periods. During the weekday AM peak hour, the heaviest truck activities (10.7%) 
occurred at the intersection of The EmlDarcadero and Taylor Street (nine trucks entering and 
exiting Pier 45), and the truck percentage for the remaining five intersections range from 0.6% to 
2.5% of the total vehicles. During the weekday PM peak hour, the intersection of The 
Embarcadero and Taylor Street again exhibits the highest truck percentage (1 .9%). The truck 
percentages at the remaining five intersections range from 0.6% to 1.0% of the total vehicles. 

During the weekend midday peak hour, the overall truck percentage decreased slightly as 
compared to the weekday AM and PM peak periods. The intersection of The Embarcadero and 
Taylor Street intersection has the highest truck percentage (1 .8%) while the truck percentage for 
the remaining intersections range from 0.2% to 0.9% of the total vehicles recorded. 

Morning Fish Trading Activity 

Truck activities during the early morning period between 5:00 - 8:00 AM, were observed on a 
number of days, and recorded for April 12, 1995. The purpose of the obsen/ation was to 
determine whether there are any existing conflicts between trucking activity and vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic. The observation was made along Jefferson Street, between Jones and Hyde 
Streets where most of the fish trading trucking activities are concentrated. The heaviest 
trucking activity occurs at around 6:30 AM along Jefferson Street between Jones and 
Leavenworth Streets. 

Since both auto and pedestrian activities are either minimal or absent during these early hours, 
there are no major conflicts. However, since both sides of the sidewalks between Jones and 
Hyde Streets on Jefferson Street are involved with loading activities, joggers and swimmers 
going between the clubhouse and Pier 39 were observed walking and running along the middle 
of Jefferson Street to bypass this two-block section. 



97 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



PLANNED ROADWAY AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 

Within the study area there are two planned improvements that would affect traffic conditions in 
the area of the proposed Project. These improvements include the construction of the electric 
street car line (F-Market line) along The Embarcadero to the northern waterfront, and 
improvements/relocation of the entrances and exits or the Pier 39 garage. 

MUNI F-Market Line 

The extension of the historic MUNI F-Market line into the Northern Waterfront is currently either 
in construction (section between Broadway and North Point) or in design stages (Mid- 
Embarcadero and Lower Market sections). This surface electric streetcar sen/ice will be 
provided from Upper Market at Castro Street to the waterfront via Market Street, and north to 
Fisherman's Wharf via The Embarcadero, Jefferson Street and Beach Street. Streetcars already 
operate on Market Street from Upper Market to First Street, and it is anticipated that streetcar 
service from First Street to Fisherman s Wharf will be implemented in 1 999. 

In the vicinity of the proposed project, the F-line will be side-aligned on The Embarcadero and 
on Jefferson Street. At Jones Street, it will loop to Beach Street, and continue southbound on 
Beach Street to The Embarcadero. Detailed design has not been completed for this section of 
the F-Market line. However, it is assumed that on Jones and Beach Street, the F-Market line will 
share the curb lanes (right turn lanes) on Jones and Beach Streets with vehicular traffic. 

The F-Market line service would consist of seventeen PCC cars, and will operate at 
approximately 7.5 minute headways during the peak hours, and 15 minute headways during 
non-peak hours. The route is anticipated to serve commute riders as well as tourists. The F- 
Market line will provide a tourist-oriented alternative similar to cable cars. Upon completion of 
the F-Market line, the MUNI #32 line will be terminated. The F-Market line would accommodate 
the #32 line patrons and a portion of the existing and new cable car trips, which would switch to 
the F-Market line. In addition, it could be anticipated that some visitors currently driving to the 
area would shift to the F-Market line. The new service will provide a convenient link (no 
transfers between lines would be required) between Market Street and the northern waterfront. 



98 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 

Pier 39 Garage 

Planned improvements to the entrances and exits at the Pier 39 garage would affect the existing 
geometries at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero. The entrance/exit will be 
relocated from Powell Street to The Embarcadero, Stockton and Beach Street. This would result 
In the elimination of the exclusive lanes dedicated to the garage entrance and exit on The 
Embarcadero and Powell Street. The entrance to the garage will be from Beach Street, and the 
exit will be on The Embarcadero south of Powell Street and on Stockton Street. 

Roadway geometry changes associated with this entrance/exit relocation include the provision 
of a left turn pocket from The Embarcadero westbound onto Powell Street southbound, one 
southbound lane on Powell Street between The Emb>arcadero/Jefferson Street and Beach Street, 
and the restriping of the two northbound lanes on Powell Street to one northbound through lane 
and one northbound through/left lane. 



99 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



H. HAZARDS 

The Hazardous Materials Setting presents an overview of the hazardous materials regulatory 
framework and an overview of existing site conditions related to proposed construction activities 
for the Harbor Services Facilities. A site history for the area of the new facilities has been 
prepared to provide a basis for evaluating the potential presence of hazardous materials in the 
soil where soil would be excavated for utility lines. Reconstruction of the Hyde Street Pier and 
renovation of Sheds A and C would not involve the excavation of soil and a site history has not 
been prepared for these areas. 

DEFINITION OF A HAZARDOUS MATE RIAL /WASTE 

Hazardous materials are generally considered to be substances with certain chemical or physical 
properties which may pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the 
environment when improperly handled, stored, disposed or otherwise managed. In general, 
discarded, abandoned, or inherently waste-like hazardous materials are referred to as hazardous 
wastes. A material is a hazardous waste if it poses a threat to human health or the 
environment.^ Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are defined in the California Code 
of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66260 through 66261.10. As defined in Title 22, hazardous 
materials are grouped into four general categories: toxic (causes human health effects); ignitable 
(has the ability to burn); corrosive (causes severe burns or damages materials); or reactive 
(causes explosions or generates toxic gasses). A hazardous waste can be present in a liquid, 
semi-solid, solid, or gaseous form. 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are regulated by federal, state, regional, and local 
laws and regulations with the objective of protecting public health and the environment. In 
general, these regulations provide definitions of hazardous substances; establish reporting 
requirements; set guidelines for handling, storage, transport, remediation and disposal of 



' California Code of Regulations, T itle 22, Section 66261 .2. 

100 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



hazardous wastes; and require health and safety provisions for both workers and the public, 
such as emergency response, worker training programs, and health and safety plans. Sites 
which are subject to these regulations, including underground storage tank sites, are identified 
on periodically updated published lists at the federal, state, and local levels. The dredging and 
disposal of Bay sediments is also regulated at the federal, regional, and state levels. 

Some major agencies enforcing these regulations include: the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (federal); the California Environmental Protection Agency (State) consisting of the 
Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the 
California Air Resources Board as well as other state agencies. ; the San Francisco Department 
of Public Health, Bureau of Toxics, Health, and Safety Services (local); the San Francisco Fire 
Department (local); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (federal); and the Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission (regional). The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control 
Board works with the State Water Resources Control Board and enforces regulations on a 
regional basis. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) works with the 
California Air Resources Board and enforces regulations on a regional basis. Appendix E 
presents a description of the major hazardous materials regulations and the agencies 
implementing them. 



SITE HISTORY 

Installation of the proposed utilities for the new Harbor Services Facilities would include the 
excavation of soil that could potentially contain hazardous materials because of previous land 
uses adjacent to the alignment or because hazardous materials may have been contained in 
materials that were used to fill the area. If hazardous materials are present, special measures 
may be required to protect human health and the environment during the installation of the 
utilities, and specific handling and disposal methods may also be required for the excavated soil. 
Article 20 of the San Francisco Public Works Code (the "Maher" Ordinance) requires applicants 
for building permits to prepare a site history for any project bayward of the historic high tideline 
indicated on Historic San Francisco Maps that would involve the excavation of 50 or more cubic 
yards of soil. 



101 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



Portions of the proposed project, including the location of the proposed utility alignment, are 
bayward of the historic high tide line. A site history has been prepared for the area of the 
proposed utility alignment (shown on Figure 16) to comply with the "Maher* Ordinance because 
It is expected that installation of the utilities would require excavating greater than 50 cubic yards 
of soil.^ The site history is described below and Table E-1 in Appendix E summarizes the 
previous land uses. The address of each site referenced is shown on Figure 16. (See also, IV 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, H. Hazards) 

Vicinity of Proposed Utility Alignment to Harbor Service Facilities 

Previous land uses to the immediate south of the proposed utility alignment (part of the Harbor 
Service Facilities) are identified in this section because of heavy industrial usage with potential 
disposal of waste in the location of the proposed alignment. From 1864 to 1865, Selby Smelting 
and Leadworks was constructed on the block bound by Jefferson, Hyde, Beach and 
Leavenworth streets. For twenty years, lead-based and other ores, including galena (a lead- 
based ore), were refined at this facility using the Pattison process to separate gold and silver 
from the ores. The ore was brought by train to the smelter where it was crushed and then 
heated to remove impurities and separate the metals. The smelter reportedly dumped slag 
(waste ore remaining after processing) into the Bay off of the wharf; the location was 
approximately at the line of Jefferson Street between Hyde and Leavenworth streets. The 
smelter shut down in 1885.^ 

The Equitable Gaslight Company was incorporated in February 1898 and constructed a 



^The following sources were reviewed to complete the site history: aerial photographs dated 1935, 1948, 1963, 1969, 
1975, 1981, 1986, 1991, and 1994; Sanborn maps (fire insurance maps which show the historic configuration of 
properties including the presence of features such as above and below ground tanks) dated 1899, 1913, 1948, 1950, 
1974, and 1994; Archeoiogical/Historicai Consultants A Cultural Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf Seafood 
Center Project Area and Environs, March, 1989; Polk and Haines Criss Cross San Francisco City Directories; San 
Francisco Fire Department files, including underground tank permits; San Francisco Department of Public Health Sites 
and Tank Listings by Site Address dated December 21, 1994; and San Francisco Department of Public Health Sites and 
Tank Ctosure Report by Site Address dated December 21, 1994. 



^Archeoiogical/Historicai Consultants, 1989. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Rshennan's Wharf Seafood Center 
Project Area and Environs. March. Available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission - 4th R. (Part of the 
technical files for this EIR, available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Missran Street, Fourth Floor.) 



102 




HAZARDS SITES IN STUDY AREA 

FIGURE NO. 16 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 103 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



manufactured gas plant on the site of the smelter/ The plant was originally intended to use the 
Hall process to produce manufactured gas. This process reportedly used coal as Its main 
feedstock and a coal wharf was located along Jefferson Street. The 1948-1994 Sanborn maps 
show a 47,000-gallon above-ground crude oil tank located at the intersection of Hyde and 
Jefferson Streets and two gas holders, each capable of holding 180,000 cubic feet of gas. To 
the east of the holders, there were gas generators and purifiers. The fuels used were reportedly 
coal and oil. There was a pipe shop located within the plant and a portion of the plant was 
constructed on refuse fill. 

Attempts to use the Hall process failed and the plant was converted to a small "water gas" plant 
in 1899 to 1900.^ This process involved steam heating crude oil and capturing the resulting 
gas. The gas was then scrubbed and purified and stored prior to distribution through pipes to 
various points of consumption. Available Sanborn maps do not show the configuration of this 
plant. In December 1900, the plant suffered an explosion in the engine room when a water tank 
reportedly crashed through the roof of the main building and ruptured underlying pipelines which 
subsequently exploded. The facility was flooded with water from the tank. Oil may have been 
spilled as a result of the explosion and spread with the flood. The plant was purchased by the 
San Francisco Gas and Electric Company in August 1903 and then completely destroyed in the 
1906 earthquake and fire. It was reportedly not in use at that time and was never rebuilt. 

The California Fruit Canners Association, North Point Cannery was constructed on the same 
block as the manufactured gas plant in 1907 to 1909.® The warehouse facilities were located in 
the western portion of the block and the processing facilities were located in the eastern portion 
of the block. The 1913 Sanborn map shows three 3,000-gallon underground storage tanks and 
one 1 5,000-gallon underground storage tank used for the storage of crude oil. A portion of the 
facility was used for box printing. 

The 1 948 Sanborn map shows that the old Cannery building was owned by Haslett Warehouse 

* Archeological/Hlstorical Consultants, 1989. 
' Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 

* Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 



104 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 

Company and the 1950 Sanborn map shows that a portion of the site was used by the 
Warehouse Service Company, also for storage. The 1994 Sanborn map shows that the eastem 
portion of the blocl< was used by the Cannery for arcade store, bazaars, restaurants, and market 
places. The western portion of the block was either vacant or used as offices. The three-3,000 
gallon underground storage tanks are no longer shown on the 1948 Sanborn map but the 
15,000-gallon underground storage tank is still shown through 1994. 

Proposed Utility Alignment to Harbor Service Facilities 

The site of the proposed utility alignment was filled on several occasions. As stated above, it is 
reported that smelter waste was dumped off the wharf along Jefferson Street prior to 1885. After 
the 1906 earthquake and fire, tons of earthquake debris were also dumped along the tideline of 
the North Beach region/ this was the first stage of the major filling within the project area. The 
1913 Sanborn map shows that area to the north of Jefferson Street was beginning to be filled. 
The location of the proposed utility alignment was primarily submerged. 

By 1914 the California Belt Railroad was built along Jefferson Street to transport materials 
needed to build the structures and exhibits of the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition 
in the Marina District.® To reach the Marina it was necessary to tunnel beneath Fort Mason, 
and rock from the tunnel was used to build an embankment in the area of Hyde and Larkin 
streets. 

The second major stage of filling within the project area was the construction of an outer 
breakwater along the Embarcadero between Jones and Hyde streets from 1916 to 1917.^ This 
included the construction of a wing wall extending along Hyde Street to Jefferson Street. The 
area within the breakwater was then dredged to form a lagoon for the fishing boats of 
Fisherman's Wharf. Over the next few years, the State Harbor Commission built several wharves 
within the project area for the fishing industry. These wharves were typically constructed on 
creosoted timber piles with concrete decks or asphalt covered timber decks. 



^ Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 
^ Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 
'Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 



105 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 

The final stage of filling in the project area took place in the 1920s and eariy 1930s when the 
Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45 were built and the Aquatic Park was completed. The Hyde Street 
Pier was built in the 1920's to provide accommodations for the Golden Gate Ferry Company 
which provided service to Sausalito and Berkeley. Later, two ferry slips and a parking wharf 
were built at the base of Hyde Street; the main aprons were constructed of structural steel. Pier 
45 was constructed on filled land in 1928 to 1929. In the early 1930s the Municipal Pier at the 
Aquatic Park was constructed. Simultaneously, another pier was constructed out from the Hyde 
Street Pier towards the Municipal Pier. 

Specific land uses on the pier and along Jefferson Street near the proposed utility alignment are 
described below: ^° 

Hyde Street Pier . Historic land uses on the Hyde Street Pier include a fish dealer, two 
gas stations, a refrigeration company, a U.S. Coast Guard rescue station, a netroom, 
and a San Francisco State Historical Park. Gateway Shipwright, Harbor Fisheries, and 
Marine Engine Filters were also located on the pier at one time, but the type of business 
was not specified for these companies. Currently the pier is used as a park and the 
Mobil Oil gas station remains. 

2905 Hyde Street . A building is located at this address on the Hyde Street Pier. It has 
been a San Francisco State Historical Monument, and occupied by the Golden Gate 
Recreational Area, The Maritime Store, and Maritime Programs. 

2936 Hyde Street . This address was occupied by Oswald Machine Works from 
approximately 1948 to 1971 for diesel engine repair. From 1980 to 1995 this address 
has been used as a fish handling facility by two companies. 



Review of San Francisco City directories allowed identification of specific occupants on the pier and along Jefferson 
Street near the proposed utility alignnnent. In some cases, the name of the occupant was available, but the type of 
business was not specified. Although City Directories are available for dates prior to 1953, the eariier directories do not 
list occupants by address and it is not possible to identify occupants of a specific address. Because of this, actual 
occupants of a property prior to 1953 could not be identified. In addition. City Directories subsequent to 1970 did not 
identify occupants on the Hyde Street Pier and the actual end date for certain occupants of the Pier may not be 
accurately reflected. 

Sanborn maps were used to confirm the location of the businesses and to also identify several land uses that were not 
indicated by review of the City Directories. In many cases, the actual name of the occupant was not included on the 
Sanborn map. 



106 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



2941 Hyde Street . This address was occupied by Oswald Machine Worl<s as an engine 
repair facility beginning in 1974. 

500 Jefferson Street . This address was a small building located at the base of Hyde 
Street, it is no longer present and 500 Jefferson Street is located across Hyde Street to 
the west. Sanborn maps for 1948 and 1950 indicate that this building was used for 
painters' storage. 

498 Jefferson Street . Land uses at this address from 1953 through the present include 
restaurants and a gift shop. 

496 Jefferson Street . This address has been used as a ship chandlers since 1 953. 

494 Jefferson Street . Based on the names of the occupants, this address has been 
used for various office purposes from 1954 through 1989. It has been vacant from 1990 
through present. From 1985 through 1987 part of this property was used by Interocean 
Seafoods and from 1986 to 1989 part was used by France Foods. It is uncertain 
whether either of these businesses involved fish or food handling. 

490 Jefferson Street . This property was occupied by Bell Smoked Fish from 
approximately 1948 to 1983 as a fish smoking business. Based on the names of 
businesses located at this property since 1983, it has been used primarily as office 
space from 1984 through the present. The Greek Fisherman occupied part of the 
property in 1984. San Francisco Smoked Fish occupied the part of the property in 
1987. These businesses may have included fish smoking or fish handling operations. 

440 Jefferson Street . This is the same address as Alioto Fish Company (described 
below), but located to the west. Based on information from Sanborn maps, General 
Petroleum Resources has operated a large above ground tank at this location from 
approximately 1948 through 1994. This address is not identified in the City Directories 
Additional information identified through review of Port and regulatory agency files 
indicates that this bulk plant was previously owned by Mobil Oil and that in 1990. 
General Petroleum Resources was in the process of refurbishing the 200,000 gallon 
above ground diesel tank. At that time, fuel was being dispensed from an existing 



107 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



20,000-gallon above ground tank. There was a spill of diesel from overfilling the above 
ground tanks in 1990. The above ground tanks have been removed and will be 
reinstalled on this property. Fire Department files indicate that there was also a 2,500- 
gallon product underground storage tank removed from this site on September 30, 1992. 
Petroleum related compounds have been identified in the soil and groundwater and a 
site remediation is undenA/ay. 

440 Jefferson Street . This property has been occupied by Alioto Fish Company as a fish 
handling facility from 1957 through the present; the City Directories identified several 
other fish handling businesses at the property at various times. The Fire Department 
files include a permit to install a gasoline dispenser dated December 28, 1971. This 
indicates the potential presence of an underground storage tank, although records do 
not identify a permitted underground storage tank. 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITE ASSESSMENTS AND INVESTIGATIONS 



During planning of the previously proposed Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center in 1989, AGS, 
Inc. conducted a soil investigation" under contract to the Port of San Francisco to assess soil 
quality within the proposed utility alignment. For this investigation, three soil borings were 
installed and a soil sample from each boring was chemically analyzed for Title 22 metals 
(including lead) and petroleum hydrocarbons (see Figure 16). The results of the analysis are 
described in Section IV.H, on pages 164-169. 



"AGS, Inc., 1989. 
1985. 



Field Sampling and Chemical Laboratory Testing, Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center. August 22, 



108 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 



An application for environmental evaluation for the project was filed on December 28, 1 994. an 
Initial Study of the proposed project was published on May 10, 1994, and it was determined that 
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project. Issues determined to 
require no further discussion as a result of the Initial Study include: 

• Land Use - established community; character of vicinity and Zoning (however, Master 
Plan Conformity is addressed) 

• Visual Quality - aesthetics; views; glare 

• Population - growth inducement; new employment; demand for new housing, 
displacement of existing residences or businesses 

• Noise - construction, ambient levels 

• Air Quality/Climate - construction, ambient air quality standards; wind, moisture, 
temperature, shading (however, odors and boat emissions are addressed) 

• Utilities/Public Services -- demand for schools, recreation, other similar public facilities 
(however, water and sewer are addressed) 

• Biology - scenic trees (however, marine biology is addressed) 

• Geology/Topography -- seismic/geologic hazards; unique physical features 

• Energy/Natural Resources -- use/depletion of fuel, water or energy 

• Cultural - disruption of archaeological site or property of historic significance (however, 
a Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure is included as part of the project) 

Therefore, the EIR does not discuss these issues, except to orient the reader or address specific 
sub-topics as required by the Initial Study and noted above. (See Appendix A, page A.l for the 
Initial Study.) 

Not all of the impacts presented in this section are physical environmental effects as defined in 
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Non-physical effects are included for 
informational purposes only. 



109 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
A. Land Use. Zoning and Plans 



The proposed project would not irxJuce substantial growth or concentration of population, 
although it would likely increase the daily population on the project site. Any potential increase 
in the visitor population might be noticeable to immediately adjacent neighbors but would not 
substantially increase the existing area-wide residential population. 

As described previously under Objectives of the Project Sponsor, see PROJECT DESCRIPTION, 
page 1), the proposed project is intended to accommodate existing fishing industry demand, 
rather than induce growth of the fishing industry in San Francisco. The provision of additional 
berthing and support facilities at Hyde Street Harbor would not therefore be expected to 
stimulate sustantial additional physical growth in the vicinity. Facilities proposed for Pier 45, 
Sheds A and C, would be expected to stimulate economic activity in the area, including 
generation of revenue to help suppx^rt fishing industry facilities. The increases in visitors and 
economic activity due to Pier 45 projects would not be expected to induce substantial additional 
physical growth in the vicinity, nor would it induce substantial population growth in the City. 

A. LAND USE, ZONING AND PLANS 

Land uses within the project site, and fishing-related uses in particular, would not be 
substantially altered by the proposed project. The potential to lease dock space to fishing 
vessels would allow more control of fishing vessels in the harbor and would minimize the 
number of rafted and double or triple-tied vessels. The truck-based fish-trading activity would 
not be expected to change due to the project, other than some trucks would relocate to the 
"valley" area on Pier 45. 

Proposed uses on Pier 45 could include activities new to Sheds A and C, but consistent with 
fishing- and visitor-related activities in the vicinity. These uses would not disrupt or divide the 
physical arrangement of an established community, nor substantially change the character of the 
vicinity. The project would require an amendment to the Northeastem Waterfront Area Plan of 
the Master Plan which designates hotel, commercial office and residential uses on Pier 45. Any 
physical impacts are discussed in the appropriate subsections of this chapter. 



110 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Watar Quality 



B. WATER QUALITY 

Activities which have been identified as potentially causing water quality impacts to the project 
area and the adjacent Aquatic Park include the following: 

• Fish handling and processing activities could generate wastes that, if improperly disposed 
of, could affect Bay water quality in the project area; 

• Potential for fuel spillage and leakage (including bilge water) from the vessels, fueling 
activities, equipment failure, and maintenance activities that could directly contaminate the 
Bay; 

• Commercial fishing and other vessels, either permanent or transient, could generate human 
and other wastes (including "floatables") that could be discharged (albeit illegally) to the 
nearshore Bay waters; 

• Potential for pier and boat deck runoff and washdown to be discharged directly to the Bay; 

• Litter and trash generated by harbor users and visitors that could be blown offshore or 
carried by birds to the Bay; and 

• Effects of dredging, filling and other construction activities on Bay water quality. 

Each of these activities are discussed in terms of their potential to occur as a result of the 
proposed project and their potential to affect Bay water quality, based on existing and historical 
water quality conditions. In addition, potential water quality effects of the proposed project that 
could in turn affect marine biota are discussed in terms of both short-term construction and 
long-term operation activities. 

FISH PROCESSING ACTIVITIES 

An area of concern raised by the public regarding the potential effects of the proposed project is 
the relationship of bacteriological water quality conditions in the harbor and Aquatic Park and 
the level of fish processing activities. There has been concern that fish processing may include 
activities such as discharge of fish wastes to the Bay, either through floor drains or through 
washdown of the pier and aprons, which would thereby affect the water quality. This section 
discusses the current and historical levels of fish processing activities, available coliform data 
and statistical evaluations, and general fish processing and fish handling practices. 



111 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



Fish Landings Data 

The Fisherman's Wharf area is an historical and current center for commercial fishing activities, 
Including handling and distribution of fish and other seafood, as discussed previously under 
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. In 1988, there were 16 commercial fishing companies on Pier 45.^ 
Eleven companies, occupying about 80 percent of the renovated Sheds B and D, were operating 
at the end of 1 995. The fish handled at these companies are either brought to the harbor by 
boat and off-loaded at the Pier, or brought in overland by truck from other ports. Information on 
fish landings (fish brought in by boats) from the California Department of Fish & Game for the 
years 1988 to 1993 for the San Francisco Bay area, which includes the major ports of San 
Francisco, Bodega Bay, Princeton, Oakland and Sausalito, are shown on Tables 1 and 2, in the 
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, pages 1 1 and 12. The data show a decrease in fish landings for the 
area, discussed below, which could be attributed to a number of factors, including a general 
decline in the industry, a decline in available fish, and an increase in restrictions placed on 
commercial fishing. One of the restrictions is the 'limited entry" (meant to stabilize a declining 
species) placed on rockfish by the Pacific Fisheries Institute from over 5 million pounds in 1988 
to a little over three million pounds in 1993 for rockfish in the Bay Area.^ The damage caused 
by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake at the Pier 45 fish processing facilities may have also 
contributed to the local decrease in fish landings. 

Fish landing data specific to the Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 project area, based on the 
database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game, was estimated by using 
data for commercial fishing companies leasing space in the harbor in 1988 (prior to the Loma 
Prieta earthquake) and in 1993. Information on pounds of fish landings in the project area for 
the two years was compared with the information for two other Bay Area ports (Bodega Bay and 
Princeton) to ascertain if some commercial fishing activity has relocated from the Hyde Street 
area to these ports during the seismic retrofit work on Pier 45 and to see if the trend at the Hyde 
Street Harbor is similar to trends at other Bay area harbors, shown in Table 2, page 12.^ 



' EJL & Associate, 1995. Data collected from California Department of Fish and Game. Fish landing receivers in 1988 
included North End Fish Co., Larocca Seafood Inc., Morgan Fish Alioto Fish Co., Blue Pacific Industries, Fishemian 's 
Wharf Seafood, Marine Reef Fisheries, Standard Fisheries Corp., Golden Seas Rsheries, Meatball Bail Distributer, ICM, 
Alioto Seafood, Caito Fisheries, Long's Fish Company, Monterey Fish Company, and United Shell Fish Company. 
Fish landing receivers on Pier 45 in 1993 included North End Fish Company, Larocca Seafood, Morgan Fish Co., 
Golden Seas Fisheries, Meatball Bait Distributer, and ICM. 
^California Department of Fish and Game, 1995. 

^ EJL & Associates, 1995. Commercial Fish Landing Dak for San Francisco Pier 45 based on Landing Receivers for 
1988 and 1993 from California Department of Fish and Game data. 



112 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

The data indicate tliat the Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45 project area accounts for about 30 percent 
of the total fish landing within San Francisco Bay, and the project area experienced about a 60 
percent decrease in fish landings (or about 4.9 million pounds) between 1988 and 1993. This 
can be compared to the overall decrease In fish landings for the San Francisco Bay during this 
period of about 50 percent (or 11.3 million pounds). Bodega Bay also experienced a reduction 
in fish landings of about 45 percent or 6.9 million pounds during this same period. Princeton, 
however, was the only port that experienced an increase during this period, about 0.8 million 
pounds, which offset the overall San Francisco Bay decrease of 50 percent by only 7 percent. 
Therefore, it can be assumed that since other ports in the area also experienced a similar 
decrease in fish landings, the decrease in fish landing poundage received at the Hyde Street 
Harbor/Pier 45 was apparently due to factors in addition to earthquake-related relocations. 
Completion of the earthquake improvements at Pier 45 would not be expected to be sufficient 
incentive for fish landings to return to pre-earthquake levels. 

The proposed improved berthing for commercial fishing vessels and improvements to harbor 
facilities would likely encourage the return of some of the fish handling activities to the 
Fisherman's Wharf area that relocated following the 1989 earthquake, but as described above, 
it is unlikely that the level of fish handling activities would return to 1988 levels. 

Bacteriolocical Water Quality 

As discussed in the ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, water quality sampling conducted in May 1995 
indicated that total coliform concentrations ranged from 300 to 1600 MPN/100 mL within the 
Inner and Outer Harbor areas. These levels do not exceed the maximum bacteriological 
criterion for water contact recreation for a single sampling event, but compliance criteria for 
bacteriological standards are based on sampling over a thirty-day period. Historical coliform 
data collected by the Department of Public Works from 1991 to 1992 collected several times per 
week show a wide range of coliform levels over the course of the year, sometimes meeting the 
standards and sometimes exceeding the standards. If the standards are exceeded, the City is 
required to post warning signs at the beaches restricting water-contact sports until the standards 
are met. 



113 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

Statistical correlation of the coliform data in Aquatic Park and waterfront locations west of the 
project area (Presidio and Crissy Field) from 1991 to 1992 indicated a statistically significant 
correlation of levels of corrform with rainfall data for the previous 24-hour period. However, 
correlations between coliform levels in the project area (Inner and Outer Lagoons) and rainfall 
were not statistically significant for the same period. The coliform data at the two westernmost 
stations also showed a statistically significant relationship with neap tides during the sampling 
period. No positive correlations were found between coliform data at any stations and fish/crab 
landings for this period.* 

There is no indication of a relationship between levels of coliform data in the harbor waters and 
fish landing data or fish processing activities. Other sources of coliform bacteria are known to 
be present in the project area, such as wet weather sewer overflows which contain untreated 
sewage diluted with rainfall and urban runoff. The statistically significant correlation between 
coliform levels and rainfall at Aquatic Park and other stations west of the project site would 
support this conclusion. Fish processing and waste handling practices, as discussed below, 
indicate that no discharges occur to the Bay. There appears to be no direct relationship 
between fish processing activities and bacteriological water quality. Other sources, such as wet 
weather sewer overflows to the Bay, appear to be more directly associated with coliform levels. 

Fish Processing and Waste Handling Practices 

The existing fish processing uses of Sheds B and D are not expected to contribute to water 
quality degradation because of recently completed improvements to the fish processing areas as 
well as Health Department regulations for food handling. The seismic repairs at Pier 45 
completed in August 1995 include new fish handling facilities, floor drains for washdown water 
that connect to the City's sanitary sewer, and floor sinks and solids separators in each lease 
area. The solids separator sinks are connected to a sump, which connect to the six-inch sewer 
line that is connected to the sewer system. The solids traps in the floor sinks are cleaned 
regularly and solids are disposed of in trash cans, which are then transported off-site daily to a 
rendering facility to be made into fishmeal. Fish processing activities primarily take place within 



* SOMA Corporation, 1995. Statistical Evaluation, Aquatic park Coliform Data, Hyde Street Harbor EIR, San Francisco, CA. 
April 7, 1995. Available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in the project files #93.574E. 



114 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

the sheds, and not on the apron, so that no fish waste is washed off the apron into the Bay. 
None of the fish wastes drain or are discharged to the Bay. The fish processing companies are 
also inspected routinely by the state and local Health Department for sanitary conditions. 

Any increased level of fish processing activity that could be associated with improved harbor 
facilities due to the proposed project would be subject to similar fish handling and waste 
disposal practices as the existing activities in Sheds B and D. Consequently, with similar to 
existing practices being utilized, any incremental increase in level of fish processing activity 
would not be expected to affect Bay water quality. 

FUEL SPILLS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES FROM BOATS 

There are numerous activities associated with boating, whether commercial or recreation, that 
can potentially affect water quality. These include potential fuel spills (oil, diesel, and gasoline), 
bilge pumping (which can contain fuels and heavy metals), garbage and debris thrown or blown 
overboard, and washdown water from boat maintenance and cleaning. 

Fuel spills to the Bay are currently regulated under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act and 
the California Oil Spill Response Act. Enforcement of these provisions is under the jurisdiction of 
the U.S. Coast Guard and the California Department of Fish and Game. These agencies as well 
as the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency must be notified in the event of any oil or fuel spill (see Appendix B for Oil Spill 
Notification List). The Coast Guard has enforcement authority over any amount of oil or product 
that creates a sheen on the water, either from the fuel tank, bilge water or other boat-related 
sources. In the event of a fuel spill, the Coast Guard's current policy is to send investigators to 
the scene of the spill to determine the source. If the owner or operator is located, the Coast 
Guard assesses a civil penalty and requires the owner/operator to clean-up the spill. The 
Department of Fish and Game also has authority to assess penalties for spills ($25,000 per 
incident is the usual fine).^ If the source of the spill or the owner/operator cannot be located or 
the owner/operator cannot clean-up the spill, the Coast Guard would hire a general contractor 



' Jones. Roberta, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Men^orandum to Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, dated November 
16, 1995, regarding Hyde Street Harbor EIR. Available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in project 
file #93.574E. 



115 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

to clean-up the spill and rely on money from an existing pollution fund. Most calls to the Coast 
Guard in San Francisco Bay are for relatively small spills.' In the past year, there have been 
fewer than ten reported incidents and all were for minor spills of less than ten gallons.^ 

In the Hyde Street Harbor and Fisherman's Wharf area, the Port of San Francisco maintains a 
Wharfinger on duty Monday through Friday to oversee boating/berthing activities in the harbor. 
Problems with fuel spills are usually associated with accidental mishaps, such as a 
malfunctioning bilge pump or a swamped vessel. The Wharfinger, fisherman or nearby 
restaurateurs would call the Coast Guard first, if such an event occurs, and then call the Port of 
San Francisco second (though the Port personnel has no enforcement authority and cannot 
write citations). In general, the boating activities at the harbor are "self-policing," with the boat 
owners or operators responsible for reporting spills, and the Wharfinger providing general 
oversight.' Weekend-use of the harbor is unsupervised. Some dumping from boats may occur. 

In addition, Rules and Regulations of the Port of San Francisco for commercial fishing boats, 
under Terminal Tariffs, Rule No. 34, Section 8C, Item No. 847 states the following: 

"No person shall dump or discharge oil, spirits, flammable liquids or contaminated bilge 
water into any area under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission. " 

The Wharfinger, under supervision of the Port Director, has authority for enforcement of these 
regulations and regularly patrols the harbor for these purposes. For fishing vessels with berthing 
leases, the Port has the authority to terminate their lease, although transient vessels without 
leases can only be asked to leave. Actual enforcement of water quality violations and penalties 
associated with fuel spills are under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, Department of Fish and 
Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board, as previously discussed. 



*Chad Corey, U.S. Coast Guard, QM-2, Marine Environmental Response and Petty Officer Chris Mandin, Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Office. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion Environmental Associates, July 12, 1995. 
^ Robert Jones, Environmental Specialist, Port of San Francisco, telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, January 12, 1996. 

'John Davey, Wharfinger, Port of San Francisco, 1995.* Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, July 12, 1995. 



116 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
6. Water Quality 

There is also the potential for spills at the fueling dock, which currently exists and is proposed to 
be maintained at its current location. However, the proposed Harbor Service facilities would 
include improvements to the existing fuels station building, including lighting and spill 
containment equipment, a new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline from the seawall to the fuel 
dock which includes automatic shut-off features, a leak detection system, remote operated 
shutoff switch and pressure sensitive valves. Oil waste disposal facilities would be constructed 
In the working area in addition to an existing facility along Fish Alley. The oil disposal/recycling 
facilities for vessels would be easily accessible for boat operators 24 hours a day with clear 
signage. These features would help reduce the likelihood of a fuel spill affecting the Bay and 
would contribute to the long-term improvement of water quality in the Harbor. 

However, the possibility of a fuel spill in the Harbor and the fuel would still exist, despite the 
proposed improvements. The Port currently maintains and would continue to maintain a spill 
prevention and response plan that specifies procedures to follow in the event of a fuel spill. The 
plan delineates source identification, clean-up, and notification (including coordination with the 
U.S. Coast Guard) procedures to contain and minimize any effect of a fuel spill in the Bay. 
Emergency fuel clean-up equipment is maintained at the fuel dock as well as at the 
Wharfinger's office and includes absorbent booms (devices about 40-feet long and five inches 
in diameter filled with absorbent material, used to contain and absorb spills) and absorbent 
pads.' Dock personnel will continue to be trained in use of equipment, clean-up of fuel spills, 
and proper disposal of used equipment. Currently, training of personnel consists of attendance 
at a 24-hour training course, with annual eight-hour refresher courses. In addition, the Port 
distributed literature to boat owners and operators regarding water quality protection and proper 
use of the oil disposal/recycling facilities when the recycling shed was completed about two 
years ago, and the Port will periodically continue this type of public information program.'" 

The proposed project is not expected to attract substantially increased numbers of boats over 
existing numbers of boats, thus, the proposed project would not result in any increased potential 



'John Davey, Wharfinger, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Onon 
Environmental Associates, August 18, 1995. 

Roberta Jones, Environmental Specialist, Port o( San Francisco, telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Onon 
Environmental Associates, January 12, 1996. 



117 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



tor fue. or oi. spills from fishing vessels over that which currently exists. The proposed prefect is 
r^ne^ to provide adequate facilities to accom.cxiate the existing number of vess.s u.n^ 
designed p ^^^^ double-tied in the harbor, and 

the harbor by providing berthing space b 

the Port will continue its existing programs and practices to mm w 

ine rori wi pvictina fuel dock which would reduce 

harbor. The project would include improvements at the existing 

the potential for fue. spills in the Harbor associated W.h the fuel dock. 
OTHFR WAST F^ PROM BOATS 

AS in any po« or harbor, .here is ,he po,en«a, .or «,ega, durnping o. wastes -^^-J"^^^' 
'I Por. o' San Frahcisco Rules and Regulations ,or commerciai -ishing vessels .ncludes the 
following provision under Item No. 847: 

■NO person shall throw, discharge or depos« from any vessel or Ironn the shore or float 
or otherwise any .nd o. refuse or sewage whatsoever Into or upon the waters o. 
harbor, or in. on or upon the banks, walls, sidewalks, or beaches o. any waters w,th. 
.he iurisdiction o. the San Francisco Ron Commission. All garbage must be removed 
from the area." 

• thp Port Director has authority for enforcement of these 

leases the Port has the authorfty to terminate their lease, although trans,ent vessels w.hot« 
el' can only be asked to leave. Actual enforcement o, water gual^ violations associate^ 
rdischarge^o, refuse or sewagetothe harbor waters is under the.^^^^^^^^^^^ 
water Qual^ Control Board. According to the Port's Wharfinger, none of the commerc, I 
rshlng boatlre perm«ed to have bathroom faci«ies that can discharge to the water. The 
lo ts mt have ully contained chemical toilets, similar to those used In a Recreafonal eh,cle 
boats musx na y ^^^.t^rc the vessels in the Harbor to assure that 

(RV) The Wharfinger regularly patrols and monitors the vessels 

t ThpHvde Street Harbor does not currently have a pump-out 
these requirements are met. The Hyde Street Harbo ^^^^^ 

station for the chemical toilets, and vessels must go to Gashouse Cove 



118 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



facilities.^ ^ 

The proposed project is not anticipated to generate an increase in tlie number of vessels using 
the harbor, and therefore, no increase would occur in potential for waste discharge from boats 
than currently exists. The potential for such discharges would, in fact, be reduced due to the 
proposed vessel sewage pump-out station. The station would be located adjacent to the fuel 
dock area with a 20 gallon per minute pump-out capacity directly connected to the City's 
sanitary sewer system. In addition, the new sewage handling facilities with the proposed project 
would be a convenience for the commercial fishermen and would reduce the likelihood of illegal 
discharges to the Bay, which would indirectly protect water quality in the Bay. 

Although the proposed project would not result in any increased potential for waste discharge 
from boats, there are additional procedures the Port could implement to minimize the likelihood 
of illegal discharge of wastes to harbor waters and to assure that waste disposal facilities are 
properly used. This could include increasing the coverage (24 hours/day) of supervision and 
oversight of commercial boating and berthing activities at the proposed harbor. 

STORMWATER 

The Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45 are located along the City's perimeter, and stormwater runoff 
from the piers and work dock area does not flow to the City's combined sewer system. The 
project area instead drains to catch basins that discharge directly to the Bay. Part of the 
recently completed post-earthquake improvements included installation of two 4,000 gallon 
oil/water separators located under the paved surface of Pier 45 between Sheds A and C for 
stormwater runoff. Runoff from the shed roofs and parking area is directed to the valley 
between the sheds, then flows to the oil/water separators for treatment, prior to discharge to the 
Bay. These improvements have provided additional water quality protection to the harbor from 
pre-earthquake conditions. Proposed improvements to Sheds A and C would be interior 
improvements and would result in no change in water quality conditions and no increase in the 
existing area of impermeable surface. Runoff from the aprons on the east and west side of Pier 



"John Davey, Wharfinger, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, July 12, 1995 



119 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



45 will continue to flow directly to the Bay. 

The proposed project would result in an increase in impermeable surfaces, associated primarily 
with the floating berths and walkways, and stormwater runoff from these surfaces would drain 
directly to the Harbor. The estimated increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the 
floating berths and walkways would not affect the existing combined stormwater/sewer 
collection system. Stormwater runoff on the Hyde Street Pier would be collected in the 
depressed central area on the pier and would flow to an oil-water separator. Water quality 
effects associated with discharge of stormwater to the Bay would not be expected to change 
substantially from the existing conditions. 

In addition, runoff from the breakwater, either from stormwater or wave action, drains 
accumulated debris, animal wastes, and sediments into the Bay. The San Francisco Fire 
Department has used the fireboat at Pier 22 1/2 periodically as requested by the Port to hose off 
the breakwater during outgoing tides so that debris and wastes are dispersed into the Bay at 
large. This practice is conducted only as requested by the Port and approved by the Fire 
Department. 

LITTER AND TRASH 

Litter and trash floating in the harbor waters is a common water quality concern in the project 
area. The litter can either be blown by the wind or carried by sea gulls from the adjacent 
restaurants and tourist shops, from the fishing vessels, or from the fish processing industries. 
The Port of San Francisco operates a work skiff one to two hours a day in the harbor to clean 
up the floating debris. Implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to affect 
the amount of litter or trash carried to the Bay, since the number of boats are not expected to 
increase and trash containers would be provided on the new marina docks and at the fueling 
dock. Although the proposed project would not result in any increased potential for litter or 
trash, the Port could implement measures to improve the existing water quality conditions, such 
as: (1) Increasing the frequency of the Porfs work skiff operation could provide an incremental 



'^Captain John Peeff, San Francisco Fire Department, Captain of Ffreboat at Pier 22 1/2. Telephone communication with 
Joyce Hsiao, Orion Environmental Associates, March 25, 1996. 



120 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

improvement in water quality and aesthetics of the harbor waters, and (2) Coordinating with 
restaurant owners and nearby commercial operators to improve housekeeping practices (such 
as improved grease disposal bins, dumpsters with side covers, increased cover garbage 
receptacles, sidewalk sweeping, etc.) to reduce litter and trash entering harbor waters. 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction of the proposed harbor improvements to the pier and berthing system would 
require removal of a portion of the existing pier structure, replacement of rock, installation of 
new concrete piles, installation of guide piles and installation of floating berths and walkways. 
These activities would involve dredging about 20,000 cubic yards of bottom sediments and 
placement of fill in the construction areas, and would disturb Bay sediments in the project area. 
Dredging, if required, would occur on a 24-hour basis. 

Dredging and placement of fill/rock materials in the Bay would be expected to result in short 
term, localized effects to the Bay water quality. These effects could include lower dissolved 
oxygen, increased turbidity and salinity, increased concentration of suspended solids, and 
possible release of chemicals present in the sediments into the water column. Due to the 
circulation and tidal effects of water flow in the harbor, the affected water would be expected to 
be dispersed and thus diluted to the Bay at large following completion of construction activities 
that would disturb Bay sediments. 

Any dredging would be conducted under permit conditions required by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which includes water 
quality certification by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that is designed to protect 
water quality; the State Lands Commission may also have regulatory approval over dredging 
activities. These permit conditions include sediment testing prior to dredging to determine if the 
quality is suitable for in-Bay disposal. All dredging conducted to date by the Port has met these 
requirements. If the regulatory agencies determine that additional water quality protection Is 
warranted, measures such as silt screens may be required during dredging, but to date this 



121 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

measure has not been necessary. In addition, the Port schedules any dredging activities to 
avoid conflicts with the herring season or with special activities at the swimming clubs.^^ 

As discussed under III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. B. WATER QUALITY. Page 43. the quality 
of sediments in the project area is generally comparable to that in other parts of the Bay. 
Therefore, effects of temporary sediment disturbance in the project area to the water quality 
would be within the range of water quality effects experienced during the recent maintenance 
dredging in April of 1995. That maintenance dredging operation lasted five to six days and 
involved removal of about 17.000 cubic yards of sediment. No water quality conditions were 
imposed on that dredging operation by the Corps of Engineers permit or the Regional Water 
Quality Control Board review. The Port received no complaints related to the dredging activity. 
In response to a request by swimmers at Aquatic Park, no dredging activities were conducted 
on Saturday.^* 

Construction activities in the Bay, such as placement of fill and rock materials, removal of 
existing piles, and installation of concrete piles would result in temporary, localized increases in 
turbidity and suspended solids, and decreases in dissolved oxygen. These effects would be 
minimized by compliance with water quality conditions proposed by the Port and included in 
construction specifications. These measures would be implemented as part of the Port's Best 
Management Practices for improving water quality. These measures would include field 
inspection during construction for visual obsen/ation of water quality and, if necessary, field 
sampling for turbidity. Similar to dredging activities, the Port would schedule in-Bay construction 
activities to avoid conflicts with the herring season and the special activities of the swimming 
clubs. 

Removal of existing piles required for pier reconstruction would result in dislodging of debris, 
particles, and fine sediments attached to the piles and releasing them into the Bay. This would 
temporarily increase suspended solids and turbidity in the harbor waters that could be 
transported to Aquatic Park. Use of temporary cloths to wrap the piles prior to pulling them 



Roberta Jones, Environmental Specialist, Port of San Francisco, telephone connnnunication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, January 12, 19996. 

Jones, Roberta, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Telephone communication with Marilyn Duffey, The Duffey Company, 
August 24, 1995. 



122 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

would reduce the release of particles to the Bay, and use of booms could minimize the potential 
for transport of particles to adjacent areas. See Best Management Practices, Chapter V., page 
165. 



123 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
C. Marine Biology 



C. MARINE BIOLOGY 

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON MARINE BIOTA 

This section summarizes analysis prepared by MEG Analytical Systems, which is included in the 
Water Quality Technical Report, available at the Department of City Planning, 1660 Mission Street. 

Reconstruction of the Hyde Street pier would include removal of some existing rock and timber and 
placement of new rock and concrete fill, which would result in loss of habitat for some species and 
a gain in potential habitat for others. Habitat loss would include the removed substrate that would 
be buried by fill, while new habitat would be created for settlement of hard-bottom species that 
would attach to the new rock fill. Organisms living on the submerged portions of the pier would be 
subject to burial from dredging, but these organisms are common in adjacent areas and would likely - 
recolonize the area following completion of construction. Sessile (permanently fixed) organisms 
growing on timber and rocks would be lost during the reconstruction of the east side of Hyde Street 
pier. Sedentary (fixed in one location) and infaunal (living within the sediment) species would also 
be lost, and motile organisms would be displaced to other locations. These organisms comprise the 
food of many demersal (living near the bottom) fish and their loss would result in short-term loss 
of food organisms for some fish living in the harbor. 

An estimated 0.16 acres of rock and timber would be removed; however, 0.43 acres of rock and 
concrete would be gained, resulting in a net increase of 0.27 acres of new substrate. Similarly, the 
65 new concrete piling supporting the proposed harbor would provide additional substrate for 
colonization by intertidal organisms. The losses of benthic habitat would be short-term due to 
proposed replacement of alternative substrate material. 

Dredging about 20,000 cubic yards of bottom sediments would result in the direct loss of soft- 
bottom, benthic habitat, and would also result in short-term increases in turbidity that could 
Indirectly affect marine organisms. Turbidity from dredging would reduce light availability and thus 
photosynthetic acticity of phytoplankton. Zooplankton near the turbid area may be subjected to 
interference with feeding behavior. Increases in turbidity can also affect filter-feeding organisms by 
impairing respiration and feeding. If turbidity is severe and prolonged, sedentary organisms may 

124 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
C. Marine Biology 



be buried by suspended sediments. Fish exposed to suspended sediment in the laboratory have 
been shown to suffer mortality as well as sublethal signs of stress.^ However, fish have the ability 
to move and avoid the area in response to sediment turbidity. Adult fish would likely escape from 
areas of high turbidity and continue to avoid the area as long as sediment suspension persists. 

Some avoidance of the project area by nnarine mammals would be likely during construction, 
particularly if pile driving is required. However, the incremental increase in noise level is not 
expected to affect seals and sea lions in the project area. Fishing vessel traffic can induce stress 
for seals and sea lions due to the potential for incidental harassment of and collisions with marine 
mammals. However, in general, it is expected that these animals would avoid the boats. No long- 
term changes in effects of fishing vessels is expected. The floating docks could provide new haul 
out spots for sea lions, as has occurred at Pier 39 Marina. Docks occupied by boats, with human 
activity, would not be likely to attract sea lion use. Unoccupied docks could. If unoccupied docks 
were to be used by sea lions and If this were to attract larger numbers of marine mammals to the 
harbor area than now exist, bacteriological water quality could be effected. It is not possible to 
accurately quantify this speculative condition. 



' O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Newman, and J.A. Sheik Jr., 1977. Sublethal effects of suspended sediments on estuahne fish. Technical 
paper, U.S. Amiy Coast Eng. Res. Center (No. 77-3):90. 



125 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
0. Public Utilities 



D. PUBLIC UTILITIES 

SEWER AND STORMWATER SERVICES 

The sewage collection system in the project area includes a new six-inch sewer line along Pier 45 (installed 
as part of the FEMA grant upgrades), which connects to the 51 -inch line along Jefferson Street. The 
proposed project is broken into the following components: 

• the Hyde Street Harbor pier reconstruction and Marina would include an oil-water separator 
for storm water, which would connect to the sewage collection system. 

• the Harbor Service Facilities would add one restroom near the fueling area for the boat 
operators and fishermen, and a new vessel pump-out station. Currently, there is no vessel 
pump-out capability available.^ This would be connected to the City sewer system. 

• Pier 45 Sheds A and C improvements, which would incorporate a 25,000-square foot visitor 
center with a food sen/ice area; a 20,000-square foot conference center with a catering 
kitchen and restrooms; 40,000 square-feet of retail space; 10.000 square-feet of office 
space; and 45,000 square-feet of outdoor public access space. 

The six-inch existing sewer main and pump station at Pier 45 were designed for existing uses of the Sheds 
A and C (parking and special events), but may not be able to accommodate the peak loads from the Pier 
45 proposed improvements.^^ Wastewater generated by the proposed visitor center, conference center, 
retail uses, and office use would likely be beyond the capacity of the existing six-inch sewer main in Pier 
45. During preliminary design of proposed improvements in Sheds A and C on Pier 45, the project sponsor 
would prepare engineering estimates of wastewater loads and peaking factors to determine the adequacy 
of the six-inch sewer main on Pier 45. The Port would coordinate with the Department of Public Works to 
establish the need for pipe upgrade replacement and would implement the resulting recommendations. 



' Personal interview, John Davles, Wharfinger, June 16, 1995. 

^Personal communication with Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, June 19, 1995. 

^Telephone conversation with Amy Carpenter, Moffatt and Nichol, June 12, 1995. 

126 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
D. Public Utilities 



The City Water Pollution Control Plant treatment facilities have been designed to handle demands from both 
wet and dry weather flows. The existing wastewater treatment facilities and discharge outfall have adequate 
capacity to accommodate any dry weather flows generated by the proposed project. 

Stormwater runoff from Fish Alley, the existing piers and aprons and buildings currently drains directly into 
the Bay. Runoff from Pier 45 is collected and treated in an oil/water separator located in the valley between 
the sheds before discharge to the Bay.* Connection of the existing drains along Fish Alley to an oil/water 
separator would reduce the occurances of untreated discharge to the Bay. The proposed project would 
also include an oil /water separator in the Harbor Facility area near the fuel dock. 

If the proposed project is implemented, an increase in impermeable surface areas, associated primarily with 
the floating berths and walkways, would occur. Stormwater runoff from these surfaces would drain directly 
to the Harbor. The estimated increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the floating berths and 
walkways would not affect the existing combined stormwater/sewer collection system. 

WATER SUPPLY SERVICES 

According to the San Francisco Water Department^, existing mains and water supply pipes would be 
adequate to serve new development associated with the proposed project. Water demand would be 
associated with the commercial eating uses (in the conference center and visitors center), the office spaces, 
and the landscaping. The project area is served by dual supply (from Taylor Street and from the 
Embarcadero) and has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.^ 

An existing master water meter is at the Pier. New pier tenants would apply for individual meters with the 
Customer Service Department of the Water Department.' In compliance with San Francisco Ordinances 
392-90 and 92-91, the project sponsor would incorporate as many water conservation devices into the 
project and landscaping as possible. Typical conservation devices include low-flow toilets, drought-tolerant 
plants and drip irrigation. 



* Chief Building Inspector, Ed Bubnis, Port of San Francisco, Personal interview, June 12, 1995. 

^Denise Davilla, San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Division, Personal Communication, June 19, 1995. 

* Ibid. 
^ Ibid. 

127 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
E. Public Services 



E. PUBLIC SERVICES 

POLICE SERVICES 

The additional visitor and employee activity associated with the proposed project (particularly Sheds A 
and C on Pier 45) would increase the potential for additional crime and vandalism in the project area 
and could, in turn, increase calls for police services. The incremental increase in demands for police 
services could be accommodated to some extent by the existing police force, although crime prevention 
measures would be required to minimize the additional demands for police sen/ices. 

To reduce demands for police services, the shed tenants could hire additional security guards for foot 
patrols in the project area. The project sponsor would implement a crime prevention education program 
for merchants and staff. The project final design would include security measures to deter crime. These 
measures may include: restricting access to harbor area, alarms, closed circuit television, and/or a 
security system. 

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 

The number of fire and non-fire related incidents and the need for fire protection services would be 
expected to increase in proportion to the net new employees, visitors, and traffic associated with 
implementation of the proposed project. 

The proposed project, primarily the Sheds A and C improvements, would result in the potential for 
increased demands for fire protection services by both the San Francisco Fire Department and the Port. 
No increased demands for fire protection services by the U.S. Coast Guard would be anticipated since 
the number of fishing vessels and level of activity at sea would remain about the same as current levels. 

At the proposed Hyde Street Harbor Marina, demands for fire protection sen/ices could be decreased 
from current levels due to proposed infrastructure improvements, including lighting and electrical power 
improvements. In addition, the proposed improvements to the fuel dock and fuel delivery system would 
also decrease the potential demands for fire sen/ices. 



128 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
E. Public Services 



At Pier 45, the Sheds A and C proposed improvements of approximately 140,000 square feet of floor 
area would generate new employees, visitors and traffic to the project site. This increased level of 
activity would be expected to increase the demands for fire protection services, although compliance 
with local building regulations regarding fire protection, fire spread control, and access would be 
expected to minimize any additional demands for fire protection services by the San Francisco Fire 
Department and the Port. Existing levels of staffing and equipment at the San Francisco Fire 
Department and the Port Fire Marshal would be expected to be adequate to accommodate any 
incremental increase in demands for their services. 

The current water distribution system (both City and Auxiliary Water Supply System) would be adequate 
to accommodate the proposed project.^ However, project specific fire suppression measures would 
need to be added, at the direction of the Fire Department. These measures would include a minimum of 
two additional suction pumps at Pier 45 Sheds A and C and sprinkler systems in the sheds. Additional 
measures might include: dry and wet standpipe outlets; additional fire alarm call boxes; automatic fire 
suppressant equipment for the floating marine diesel fuel depot; signage for egress; and provisions for 
fire lanes and curb markings. The Fire Department would require installation of low and high pressure 
hydrants, to meet fire department regulations.^ 



' Steven I. Van Dyke, Superintendent, San Francisco Fire Department, Bureau of Engineering and Water Supply, Personal 
interview, June 16, 1995. 

■ ^ Ibid. 



129 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
F. Air Quality 



F. AIR QUALITY 



Based on the Initial Study (see Appendix A, page A.21) and the Transportation Section of this 
EIR, the proposed project would not generate sufficient vehicular traffic to warrant analysis of 
potential air quality effects from motor vehicle emissions, such as localized effects on carbon 
monoxide or regional effects to the air quality in the Bay Area Air Basin. The Initial Study has 
also indicated that demolition and construction activities would not raise dust levels to a level 
that would have significant impacts upon air quality. In addition, although air pollutant emissions 
are associated with marine vessels (discussed in the Initial Study, page A.21), the proposed 
project is not anticipated to result in any change in existing levels of marine vessel activity since 
the proposed project is designed to accommodate the existing level of vessel usage in the 
harbor. Thus, no changes in regional air quality emissions from marine vessels would be 
expected from the proposed project. Therefore, these topics are not discussed in this section. 
This section focuses on air quality effects associated with odor emissions from fish processing 
activities on Pier 45, along Fish Alley, and around the boats in the harbor due to concerns raised 
by the public to the Port. 



FISH PROCESSING ODOR 



Odor and the fishing industry are inextricably linked together. A major source of unpleasant 
odor is from the anaerobic (oxygen deficient) decomposition of nitro-organic compounds. Fish 
processing industries, similar to sewage plants, feed lots, and rendering plants, are typical 
examples of odor sources due to the presence of relatively large amount of nitro-organic 
compounds. Most fish and other marine organisms do not contain a high surplus of oxygen in 
their systems, and therefore they are susceptible to rapid spoilage when exposed to air. 
Compounding this problem is that the breakdown of fat in fish (fish oil) leads to the formation of 
dimethyl amine, which is the major source of fishy" odor. Odor tendency varies among 
various marine species due to their differences in fish oil content and susceptibility to bacterial 
decomposition. Cold temperatures markedly slow the bacterial breakdown process and placing 
the marine species on ice can reduce the odors generated. Odors of a more putrescent 
character may develop rapidly when marine life tissue begins to decompose, but fish odor in 
itself is not necessarily an indication of any unhealthful state of the product. 



130 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
F. Air Quality 



Odor nuisance is a subjective phenomenon. The Fisherman's Wharf area often smells fishy, 
which could be considered to lend character to the area, and the odor may not necessarily be 
perceived as objectionable. If the fish odor were intense, or if the odor character became septic 
or putrid, the same odor becomes nauseating unless olfactory sensitivity has been reduced from 
extended exposure to the odor. 

Because odor can be the result of a complex mix of organic and inorganic chemicals, and 
because secondary factors can affect perception (such as odor strength and character, a 
person's previous association with the odor, a person's age and gender, etc.), no completely 
objective, quantitative mechanism exists for odor measurement. The most common odor 
descriptor is a parameter called an "odor unit" (OU). The number of OU's in an air sample is 
equal to the number of dilutions with clean air needed to reduce the odor strength until fewer 
than one-half of people with normal olfactory acuity cannot smell the odor any longer. This 
parameter may also be called the dilution-to-threshold (D/T) odor strength. It relates only to 
odor intensity, and not to character. A rule of thumb is that 5 D/T is the threshold for 
unpleasant odor that begins to evoke nuisance complaint among the more sensitive observers 
(generally women are more sensitive than men). At 10 D/T, the complaining percentage 
noticeably rises. 

Odor complaints in Aquatic Park have been voiced to the Port regarding odors reportedly 
emanating from the vicinity of the fish processing activities on Pier 45 and from boats in the 
harbor (see Initial Study, Appendix A), although no odor complaints have been reported to the 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.' Some complaints suggest that offensive odors are 
more associated with foul odors of a septic or putrid nature than simple "fishy" odor. The worst 
odors are described as having a sewage character as opposed to a more fresh fish odor and 
are described as "not all that frequent."^ 

Such odors may have been associated with existing fish processing along Fish Alley, or former 
fish processing in Sheds B and D on Pier 45, but the odors could also derive from other 



' Telephone communication with Jim Ting, Area Inspector, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, with Evelyn 
Shellenberg, Orion Environmental Associates on January 12, 1996. 
^Odor Survey conducted by Orion Environmental Associates, May 1995. 



131 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
F. Air Quality 



sources, such as stormwater catch basins or the combined sewer system. If the odor is from 
existing fish processing activities, it is more likely due to an upset in the processing stream, such 
as a clogged sewer or opened vents on waste storage, rather than from standard operating 
procedures. However, any odors currently emanating from existing fish processing activities In 
Sheds B and D would be expected to be reduced from pre-earthquake levels due to the recently 
completed (August 1 995) improvements associated with repairs of earthquake damage. 
Improvements in existing operations may allow for any increased volume of fish processing 
activities associated with the proposed project without generating any additional odors, since 
sources of possible odor have been replaced. These could include replacement of inadequately 
sized storage, sewers or drainage/washdown facilities; improved materials such as stainless 
steel or ceramics, that are more easily sanitized; improved refrigeration/freezing; and improved 
clean-up facilities. 

An odor survey was conducted in the vicinity of the Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 on May 3, 
1995 in mid-afternoon and repeated at 5:30 AM on May 11, 1995. A syringe dilution apparatus 
described in American Society of Testing Materials Standard Method D-1391 was used by a 
trained observer to evaluate odor strength. During the first survey, in the afternoon, there were 
moderate winds and little activity on the pier; odors were transitory and not strong enough to 
measure. Faint fish odor and a diesel oil odor were detected near a fishing boat berthed in the 
Inner Lagoon, but not at any measurable level. During the second survey in the early morning, 
the winds were lighter and activity levels were higher. Odors were not detected at Aquatic Park 
because winds were from the west at one to two miles per hour. Fish odor was detectable at a 
distance of 250 feet downwind of Fish Alley. No odor was detected on Pier 45 itself, except for 
brief "whiffs" too weak and too infrequent to be measured. A maximum odor level of 10 D/T 
was observed near the rear door of a truck parked on Leavenworth Street, which was loading 
fish packed in ice. The odor was not detectable more than a few feet away. 

As observed during the odor survey, odor nuisance in the Aquatic Park area would be 
influenced by the prevailing wind direction. Wind records from the downtown San Francisco 
wind monitoring station operated by the U.S. Weather Bureau indicate the following wind 
direction frequency: 



132 



a 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 



F. Air Quality 



Wind Speed 
(miles per hour) 



Wind Direction 
(from) 



Percentage of Occurrence 
(%) 



Light (<3 mph) 
Moderate (4-1 1 mph) 
Strong (>11 mph) 



NE, ENE, E 
NE. ENE, E 
NE. ENE. E 



2.5% 
5.3% 
0.6% 



Light (<3 mph) 
Moderate (4-1 1 mph) 
Strong (>11 mph) 



SW. WSW, W 
SW, WSW. W 
SW. WSW, W 



4.1% 

11.9% 

13.2% 



The Aquatic Park is located west and southwest of the harbor and Pier 45. The predominant 
wind direction is from the west, southwest, or west southwest, which is in the direction going 
from Aquatic Park towards the pier. When the predominent winds are blowing, odors from the 
fish processing and harbor activities would be carried away from Aquatic Park. This wind 
direction occurs more than three times more frequently than from the reverse direction. The 
frequency of light winds, when odors would be least dispersed, from the direction of the pier and 
harbor toward Aquatic Park occur about 2.5 percent of the time, or about 4 hours per week, 
usually in the middle of the night or very early in the morning, and especially in winter when 
recreational users at Aquatic Park are limited. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that any increased level of fish processing activities associated with the 
proposed project would result in a noticeable increase in "fish" odors in the project area, 
particularly in Aquatic Park. In addition, the proposed project would not be expected to result in 
any increased odors associated with boating and vessel activity, such as diesel fumes, since the 
project would be designed to accommodate the existing level of boating activity and no increase 
in number of boats is anticipated. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District nuisance rule prohibits odor nuisance. If five 
different individuals were to make separate odor complaints on a single day due to fish 
processing activities and the complaints are confirmed by an inspector, it would be considered a 
public nuisance. The Air District would then initiate action with the fish processing operators to 
reduce the source of odors. 



133 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

G. TRANSPORTATION 

The information in this section is derived from the Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 Transportation 
Analysis prepared by KORVE Engineering, Inc. in consultation with the City Planning 
Department, dated October 1995. A copy of that report is on file and available for public review 
at the City Planning Department, located at 1660 Mission Street, 5th floor. 

TRAVEL DEMAND 

Project travel demand refers to total new vehicle, transit and pedestrian traffic generated by the 
proposed project. This section provides an estimate of potential travel demand to be generated 
by the proposed Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 Project. 

Trip Generation 

Table 9 presents the total person-trip generation for the proposed land uses on Pier 45 for the 
Proposed Project. The number of person trips generated by the project is presented, as are the 
net new project trips. Based on surveys conducted at Fisherman's Wharf as part of the 
Northern Waterfront Transportation Study, 1987 and the Underwater World Aquarium at Pier 39, 
1 989, an estimated 70 percent of the total retail, conference center and visitor center trips 
generated by the facility would be linked trips. Linked trips would include those visitors already 
coming to Fisherman's Wharf who add the proposed project to their itinerary, and those who 
decrease the number or duration of visits to other attractions. 

The person-trip generation for the proposed project was based on information obtained from a 
number of sources. Sources included the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation 
Impacts, July 1991, Citywide Travel Behavior Sun/ey, 1993, and the Northern Waterfront Traffic 
and Transportation Study, 1987. 

Trip Distribution and Mode Split 

Mode split and distribution information for retail, office and cultural (conference and visitor 
center) trips was obtained from the Citywide Travel Behavior Survey, Employees and Employers, 
May 1 993 and information obtained from the Department of City Planning. Assignments to travel 



134 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

modes for the project were made based on this mode split information. 

Table 10 presents the net trip generation by mode for the peak periods. This table presents the 
number of vehicles generated by the proposed project, and thus accounts for single-occupancy 
and shared-ride vehicles, as well as the number of transit, walk and 'other* trips. Other trips 
Include those visitors that use bicycles, motorcycles or other modes. 

Hyde Street Harbor . Minor improvements are proposed for the Hyde Street Harbor, and the new 
facilities such as the pump-out station and the restrooms would support the existing commercial 
fishing uses in the harbor. The provision of the additional berths in the harbor would improve an 
existing 'double-stack' berthing condition. 

The number of parking spaces at the Hyde Street Harbor would increase over the number of 
spaces that currently exist, and the spaces would be used by the existing users of the Harbor. 
Since the existing users of the Harbor already park at off-street lots and on-street in the vicinity 
of the Harbor, it is not anticipated that the improvements at the Harbor would result in an 
increase in the number of vehicle trips to the Harbor. Existing and future trips to the Harbor are 
already included as part of the existing traffic volumes and operating conditions in the study 
area. 

Pier 45 : The proposed project, the Fisheries Center, would generate a total of 58 vehicle-trips 
during the weekday AM peak hour, 81 vehicle-trips during the weekday PM peak hour, and 98 
vehicle-trips during the weekend midday peak hour. 

Vehicle trips were assigned to the roadway network using the distribution information for retail, 
office and cultural trips from CTBS. The majority of the trips (60 percent of the cultural use and 
40 percent of the retail use) would be made from locations within San Francisco. Approximately 
35 percent of the retail trips and 18 percent of the cultural trips would be from out of the region. 
These distribution patterns were used as the basis for assigning the project vehicle trips to the 
local streets in the study area. 



135 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



Table 9 



Person-Trip Generation 



Use 

Total Project Trips 






Wee 

AM 


m 


Weekend 1 


Visitors Center 


25,000 


6,384 





609 


609 


Conference Center 


20,000 


3,480 


418 


278 


661 


Retail 


40,000 


6,000 


726 


726 


726 


Office 


10,000 


181 


15 


15 


2 


Total Project Trips 


16,045 


1,159 


1,628 


1,998 


Net New Trips 


Visitors Center 


25,000 


1,915 





183 


183 


Conference Center 


20,000 


1,044 


125 


83 


198 


Retail 


40,000 


1,800 


218 


218 


218 


Office 


10,000 


181 


15 


15 


2 


Net New Trips 


4,940 


358 


499 


601 



Table 10 

^roject-Generated Trips by Mode 





Weekday Al\ll _ 


Weekday PW 


Weekend Jfftdday 


Auto' 


58 


81 


98 


Transit 


75 


110 


133 


Walk 


119 


164 


202 


Other 


35 


44 


51 



Notes: 

(1 ) Represents vehicle trips. Person-trips using auto as a travel mode were adjusted by vehicle occupancy 
rates reported in the City Travel Behavior Sun/ey data to estimate number of vehicle trips. 

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc. 



136 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS 

Impacts of the proposed project were assessed for the five Intersections in the vicinity of the 
proposed project. Traffic counts conducted in February 1995 were used as the basis of 
analysis. Sensitivity analyses using July 1995 traffic counts were conducted at key intersections 
to determine if the February conditions were substantially different from summer conditions. The 
analysis results indicate that the LOS operating conditions would remain similar under both the 
winter (February) and summer (July) conditions. Under existing conditions the five study 
intersections currently operate at LOS B or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, 
and the weekend midday peak hour. 

As defined by the City and County of San Francisco, the operational impact of an intersection is 
considered significant when project traffic causes the Level of Service to deteriorate from LOS D 
to LOS E. Refer to Appendix D for detailed description of the LOS designations for 
intersections. 

The analysis considers two scenarios (Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Year 2010) and 
three different peak hours (weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend midday). Tables 11 and 12 
present the results of the Existing Plus Project and Cumulative analyses for the weekday and 
weekend peak hour conditions, respectively. 

Existing Plus Project Traffic Operating Conditions 

With the Proposed Project, traffic operating conditions at the five study intersections would 
remain essentially unchanged. Under all conditions, all intersections would operate at Level of 
Service B or better. The intersection of Jefferson Street/ Powell Street/The Embarcadero would 
operate at level of Service C in the future with the proposed project and cumulative conditions. 
The Proposed Project would not cause the Level of Service to degrade to an unacceptable Level 
of Service E or F during the weekday AM or PM peak hours, nor during the weekend midday 
peak hour. 



137 



S3 Hk 



15 

111 



m i 



re 

o 



: 

l» 

mm 



m 



■ 



< 



81 
D 



>4 
O 



S 



ffim-. 

m 



00 



CD 



CD 



CQ CQ CO 



r-- CO 

1^ 00 CD 



CD 



CQ 



CQ CD GO 



CO 



CJ) o> 
iri CO 



CO 



CD 



OQ CD CQ 



O 

00 



in T- o 
00 CO 



CQ 



CQ 



CQ CQ CQ 



CD 



O T- 

h~ CD 



CQ 



CQ 



CQ CQ < 



O 
00 



in 
csi 



CD CO 

CO 



CQ 



QQ 



OQ 00 < 



00 



CO O CJ5 

CD csi 



CQ 



CQ 



CQ CQ < 



CN 
00 



CO 



■"^ O CO 

r-- 00 CO 



OQ 



OQ 



OQ OQ < 



o 



CO <J) * 
00 

in ■ 

CM 



o 
>. 
ro 

!^ 
c 
o 
(/} 

I 



^ o 

I s 

— ro 

»- LU 

(U 

J= 



O 0) O 

>> 55 

X m 

o o 1 

CO CO $ 

0) (U o 

OQ CQ Q. 



c 
o 
o 

3 

o 

X 

JC 

re 

4) 

a. 

>« 
re 
•o 



0) 

> 

0) 

c 
o 

« w 

^1 



IT 



m 



Q 



CQ OQ CQ CQ CQ 



CO 



CD in ■'t 
00 00 oo 



CQ O OQ OQ OQ 



o Tj- oo 
00 00 o6 



m m m m m 



T- in 



oo CNJ 



^ ;i r>-. 00 00 



CQ CQ CQ CQ OQ 



00 CM i. 

o ^ 0C3 ^ 



T3 

ro 
o 
k- 

CD 

E 

LU 



O 0) 
>. $ 
CD P 



C 

o 
I 

0) 



9: ^ 

o 
CO 



O 0) 
>. "D 

CD ^ 



O 

X OQ 



X m 



CQ OQ Q. 



138 



o 

0) 
> 

I 

Q. 

(/) 
T3 
C 

o 
o 

w 



c 
o 

(0 

c 
o 

^ 
c 
o 
o 

CJ) 

c 

X 

<u 
o 

T3 

c 

C 

g 

o 

w 
I 

-♦— ' 

_c 

T3 
0) 



Q. 
O 
_ I- 

ro c/) 

O CD 

ro $ 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

Cumulative (Including Project) Conditions 

For the future (Year 2010) cumulative intersection analysis, existing traffic volumes were adjusted 
based on compound annual growth rates of between 0.8 and 1.5 percent (12.7 to 25% over 15 
years). These rates are also used in the ongoing San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR 
and are based on anticipated future year traffic volumes at intersections along the Embarcadero, 
as identified in the Alternatives to Replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal 
Separator Structure EIS/EIR. The traffic volumes used as part of the Embarcadero/Terminal 
Separator Structure effort were developed as part of a two-step process, including identification 
of future traffic growth in downtown San Francisco through the use of the regional MTC travel 
demand model, and a more refined assignment of vehicle trips to the street network. 

Under future cumulative conditions, it is anticipated that the fish handling space at Sheds B and 
D would become fully occupied. Activities associated with these operations include early 
morning (4:30 AM to 1 1 :00 AM) fishing, and late morning to mid-afternoon processing, clean-up 
and trading (1 1 :00 AM to 2:00 PM). For the most part, these activities would not coincide with 
the peak period of activity for the Proposed Project. 

Cumulative conditions were analyzed for two roadway configuration scenarios: the existing 
roadway configuration, and a revised roadway configuration on Taylor and The Embarcadero 
proposed by the Port of San Francisco. 

Existing Roadway Configuration: This scenario assumes that the roadway configuration is 
essentially the same as it is today, with the exception of the Pier 39 garage improvements and 
the construction of the MUNI F-Market line. The proposed improvements to the Pier 39 garage 
would not cause the traffic Levels of Sen/ice to degrade the operations of the intersections of 
Beach and Powell Street nor Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero. The improvements would 
result in a decrease in the number of vehicles approaching these intersections. 

The operation of the MUNI F-Market line would also not cause traffic operations to degrade to 
an unacceptable Level of Service. The operations of the street car were incorporated into the 



139 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



analysis for the study intersections of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero and Jefferson and 
Taylor Streets. 

Under the Proposed Project all intersection operating conditions would be sinnilar to those 
identified for Existing Plus Project conditions, and all intersections would operate at LOS B or 
better. The exception is the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero which would 
change to LOS C under cumulative weekend midday conditions. 

It should be noted that the removal of the westbound left turn into the Pier 39 garage and the 
northbound right from Powell Street to The Embarcadero southbound would result in minor 
improvement in operating conditions at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero 
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 

Revised Roadway Configuration: Under this condition, the planned changes to the existing 
network were incorporated into the operational analysis, the same as above. In addition, 
segments of Taylor Street and The Embarcadero are proposed to operate as two-way streets. 
Figure 1 7 presents the proposed revised roadway configuration. 

Taylor Street between The Embarcadero and Bay Street would be converted from a one-way 
southbound roadway to two-way, with one lane in each direction. Between Jefferson Street and 
The Embarcadero, the existing loading zone would remain. This revision would allow vehicles to 
access Pier 45 from Taylor Street. 

The Embarcadero, between Powell Street and Taylor Street would be converted from one-way 
westbound operation to two-way operation, with one lane in each direction. This reconfiguration 
of The Embarcadero to two-way would provide for an additional lane of capacity for vehicular 
traffic. Tour bus parking would remain at the north curb of this section. As part of this 
proposed reconfiguration, the sidewalk on the north curb would be widened. Vehicles exiting 
Pier 45 would be able to continue on The Embarcadero to Powell Street. 

Under the Revised Roadway Configuration, the weekday PM peak and weekday midday peak 
hour the delay at the intersection of Jefferson and Taylor would be slightly longer than under 

140 




141 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



conditions with the Existing Roadway Configuration; however, the LOS would remain at LOS B. 
Due to the addition of additional capacity at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero, this intersection would operate at LOS B, as opposed to LOS C under the 
Existing Roadway Configuration, during the weekend midday peak. 

TRANSIT SERVICES 

Transit demand generated by the proposed project is estimated to be minimal. Based on the 
project trip generation mode split information provided by the Department of City Planning, it is 
estimated the Proposed Project would generate approximately 75 new transit trips during the AM 
peak hour, 110 transit trips during the weekday PM peak hour, and 133 trips during the weekend 
midday peak hour. The direction of these trips is equally split between those entering and those 
leaving the project area. This estimated demand would be distributed between the four existing 
transit lines (26 AM and 25 PM weekday peak hour trips and 15 weekday peak hour trips) and 
the two cable car lines (12 AM and 20 PM weekday peak hour trips, and 20 weekend peak hour 
trips) that serve the project area. Most of the existing MUNI lines have additional capacities in 
the vicinity of the project, while the cable cars generally operate at capacity during the weekday 
PM peak hour and weekend midday peak hour. However, the F-Market line is anticipated to 
attract some cable car riders. This would relieve the over-capacity conditions at the cable cars. 
Therefore, it is not anticipated that this additional transit demand would result in impacts to 
transit. 

PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AND DEMAND 
Parking 

The Proposed Project improvements to Sheds A and C would consist of approximately 95,000 
sq. ft. of visitor center, retail and conference center space. Based on this occupied space, the 
San Francisco Planning Code requires that the Proposed Project provide 1 93 parking spaces. 
The Proposed Project would supply a total of 200 parking spaces for the Proposed Project 
development and existing fish handling uses. 



142 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

Parking demand for the project was estimated based on information provided In the CTBS and 
the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation Impacts, July 1991, published by the 
City and County of San Francisco, Department of City Planning. The project would generate a 
peak parking demand for approximately 1 1 7 parking spaces. This parking demand represents 
the estimated number of vehicles that would park on the project site during the peak period. 

Loading 

Based on the 95,000 sq. ft. of office, retail, visitor center and conference uses, the San Francisco 
Planning Code requires that the project provide one loading space. The Proposed Project 
would provide a loading facility (one service space), thus meeting the Planning Code 
requirements. 

Based on the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation Impacts, Appendix 7, July 
1991, it is estimated that the Proposed Project would generate approximately 14 delivery/service 
trips per day, which corresponds to a demand for one space in an average hour and in the peak 
hour. Delivery vehicles would consist of primarily of vans and trucks. 

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPACTS 

A pedestrian crosswalk analysis was conducted for Existing Plus Project conditions at the 
intersection of Taylor and Jefferson Streets for the weekday and weekend midday peak hours. 
Under existing conditions during the weekday AM and PM and weekend midday peak hours, all 
four crosswalks at the study intersection experience LOS D or better. The exception is during 
the weekend midday peak, when the east crosswalk operates at LOS E. 

The addition of project-generated pedestrian trips to existing pedestrian volumes would not 
result in a worsening in the LOS level from existing conditions. During the weekday midday 
peak hour, with the proposed project, the north and east crosswalks would continue to operate 
at LOS C, while the south and west crosswalks would operate at LOS B. During the weekend 
midday peak hour, the north and west crosswalks would continue to operate at LOS D, while the 
east crosswalk would remain at LOS E. 



143 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



Under the Proposed Project, pedestrian traffic volumes would increase in the immediate vicinity 
of Pier 45, including on Taylor Street and on The Embarcadero between Taylor Street and 
Powell Street, and would add to the existing pedestrian congestion. Existing peak hour 
conditions at the north sidewalk on The Embarcadero are congested when tour buses unload 
and load passengers. 



144 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

H. HAZARDS 

This section discusses existing hazardous materials handling and public health impacts 
associated with the presence of and exposure to hazardous materials during construction of the 
proposed project. During reconstruction of the harbor facilities, potential hazardous materials 
may be encountered during dredging, replacement of existing timber pier structures, and 
relocation of rock fill. During construction of the Hyde Street Harbor Marina, hazardous wastes 
may also be encountered during excavation for the planned utility lines or any construction 
activities; during demolition of existing buildings; and during dredging operations necessary for 
construction of the berths. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLING 

A 20,000-gallon and a 210,000-gallon above ground fuel tanks were previously used to supply 
diesel to the fuel dock; the tanks were located at 440 Jefferson Street. Diesel was supplied to 
the fuel dock through approximately 400 feet of a 3-inch diameter delivery line. Approximately 
100 feet of the existing pipe from the fuel tanks to the seawall was previously replaced with 
double walled steel pipe. The remaining 300 feet of pipe would be replaced and equipped with 
automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, a remote operated shut off switch, and 
pressure sensitive valves as part of the proposed project. The fuel dock would also be provided 
with spill containment equipment. Both above ground tanks have been removed and a soil and 
groundwater remediation is underway. Fuel is currently supplied to the fuel dock from a 
temporary truck with an approximately 8,000 gallon tank. The truck is located near the dock and 
is bermed; absorbent material is available to control potential spills.^ 

The Port maintains a location on the southern edge of the outer lagoon (see Figure 1 6, page 
103) for fishermen to recycle their used oil. The oil is poured into a 260-gallon above ground 
tank and the Port hires a contractor to recycle the oil as needed.^ The tank is contained in a 
partially enclosed shed. 



' RolDerta Jones, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation with Mary McDonald of Orion Environmental Associates, 
December 12, 1995 

^ Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation with Mary McDonald of Orion Environmental Associates, 
. April 24, 1995. 



145 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



POTENTIAL HAZARDS IN BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 

Building materials commonly used in older buildings that may pose public health hazards 
include asbestos, electrical equipment such as transformers and fluorescent light ballasts that 
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors and lead- 
based paints. If present in a building being demolished, there nnay be a potential risk of worker 
exposure, and possibly public exposure, if these hazardous materials should become airborne or 
released as a result of an accident. These materials would also require special disposal 
procedures. In addition, existing piers that are planned for removal are constructed of creosote 
treated timber and may require special disposal procedures.^ 

No building surveys have been performed to identify whether hazardous building materials are 
present in the Bell Smoked Fish building which would be demolished during construction of the 
Harbor Services Facilities. Due to the age of the building, however, these materials could 
potentially be present. A building survey to identify PCB-containing electrical equipment or 
fluorescent light ballasts, asbestos, lead-based paint, fluorescent lights potentially containing 
mercury vapors, and other potentially hazardous building materials has been described as part 
of the proposed project. 

Any hazardous materials identified in the buildings or piers would be removed and disposed of 
prior to pier removal or building renovation or demolition. The removal and disposal would be 
performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials 
regulations described in Appendix D. This would minimize the potential risk of exposure of 
workers and the public to hazardous building materials. Abatement of hazardous building 
materials would be performed under the direction of the Port. 

POTENTIAL SOIL CONTAMINATION 

Installation of the proposed utilities would require excavation of soil along the alley leading to the 
fuel dock and pump out facility (see Figure 16, page 103); it is not expected that groundwater 
would be encountered in this excavation. Hazardous wastes may potentially be present in the 



3 Currently, the Regional Water Quality Control Board does not approve the use of creosote treated timber for 
construction of piers because they are considered to pose a threat to fish and wildlife health. 



146 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

soil due to previous land uses along the proposed utility alignment, because hazardous wastes 
were contained in the fill materials used at the site, or due to migration from nearby hazardous 
waste sites. No soil removal is planned as part of the renovation of Sheds A and C. 

The potential presence of hazardous wastes within the proposed utility alignment was evaluated 
by completing a site history, reviewing existing hazardous waste sites within a one-half mile 
radius, and reviewing previous sampling conducted. As described below, sampling was 
previously conducted within the proposed utility alignment but the analytical program did not 
include all of the laboratory analyses necessary to identify all of the chemicals potentially present 
in the soil or those required by the "Maher" Ordinance. Sampling and analysis of the soil to 
identify whether hazardous wastes are present in the soil and to comply with the requirements of 
the "Maher" Ordinance will be conducted by the Port following preliminary engineering to 
identify the specific location of ground disturbing activities. 

Potential Hazardous Wastes Based on Site History 

Based on the site history prepared for the vicinity of the proposed utility alignment (see 
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, Section III.H, Hazards) there are numerous potential sources of 
hazardous wastes. Those land uses that potentially involved the use of hazardous materials are 
summarized in Table 13 with a listing of the hazardous wastes potentially used. Potential 
hazardous wastes related to each land use are as follows: 

• Potential hazardous wastes present as a result of Selby Smelting and Iron Works 

(located at 680 Beach in the 1800's) include heavy metals such as lead and arsenic,* 
solvents, acids, and cyanide. It is reported that the smelter dumped slag to the north of 
the plant, along Jefferson Street between Hyde and Leavenworth streets. 



* Heavy metals are those considered to by the regulatory agencies to be persistent and bioaccumulative toxic 
substances. 



147 



IV. ENVIRONMEhfTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Table 13 



Summary of Land Uses Potentially Involving Hazardous Wastes 



Location 



Land Use 



Approximate 
Date 



Potential Source of 

Hazardous 

Materiats 



Potential Hazardous 
Materiats Present 



600 to 680 Beach Smelter 
Street 



1864-1885 



Manufactured Gas 1898-1906 
Plant 



Cannery /Warehous 1907-1994 

e/Arcades and 

Bazaars 



Smelting Operations 
Dumping 

Coal Wharf 
Above Ground 
Tanks 
Pipe Shop 

Explosk>n 
Plant Operations 

Refuse Fill 

Underground Tanks 
Box Printing 



Heavy Metals, Cyanide, Adds, 
Solvents 

PNAs, Heavy Metals 

Crude Oil, Manufactured Gas 

Solvents, Peti'oleum Products, Heavy 

Metals 

Crude oil 

PNAs, Benzene, Ammonia, Cyanide, 
Hydrogen, Oil and Grease 

Various 

Crude Oil 

Inks, Solvents, Heavy Metals, Oil and 
Grease 



Jefferson Street 



Railroad 



1914- ? 



Track Maintenance 



Oil and Grease, Peti^oleum Products, 
PNAs, Pesticides, PCBs, Lead, 
Cyanide 



Hyde Sti-eet Pier 



Gas Stations 

Fish Dealing and 
Handling 

Refrigeration 

Engine Filters 



1948 - 1995 

1954- 1970 

1955- 1957 
1955-1957 



Product and Oil 
Storage, Usage 

Refrigerant 



Refrigerant 
Oil Usage 



Gasoline, Diesel, Oil, Heavy Metals, 
Solvents 

Freon 



Freon 

Peti'oleum Products, Heavy Metals, 
PCBs 



2936 Hyde Street 



Diesel Engine 
Repair 

Fish Handling 



1948-1971 



1980-1995 



Engine Repair Solvents, Peti^oleum Products, Heavy 

Metals, PCBs 

Refrigeration Freon 



2941 Hyde Sti-eet Diesel Engine 
Repair 



1974-1994 Engine Repair Solvents, Peti'oleum Products, Heavy 

Metals, PCBs 



148 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Table 13 (coni) 



Summary of Land Uses Potentially Involving Hazardous Wastes 



Location 



Land Use 



Approximate 
Date 



Potential Source of 

Hazardous 

Materials 



Potential Hazardous 
Materials Present 



440 Jefferson Street Fish Handling 



1957-1995 



Refrigeration, 
Potential 
Underground 
Storage Tank 



Freon, Petroleum Products 



440 Jefferson Street Gasoline and 
Diesel Storage 



1935-1994 



Above and Below 
Ground Tanks 



Gasoline, Diesel 



490 Jefferson Street Fish 1948-1987 Refrigeratk>n 

Smoking/Handling 



Freon 



494 Jefferson Street Fish Handling 1985-1987 Refrigeratk>n 



Freon 



500 Jefferson Street Painters Storage 1948-1950 Material Storage Paints, Heavy Metals, Solvents 



Notes: 



The alignment is underiain by fill materials, including 1906 earthquake and fire fill and potentially smelting slag; potential 
hazardous materials associated with the fill include PNAs, peti-oleum products, solvents, heavy metals, cyanide and acids. 
PNAs : Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 
PCBs = Polychlorinated Biphenyts 

Source: Orion Environmental Associates, 1995 



149 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

• Potential hazardous wastes associated with the manufactured gas plant formeriy at 600 
to 650 Beach Street, include PNAs^, benzene, ammonia, cyanide, hydrogen, and oil and 
grease. Potential hazardous materials associated with the above ground tank and pipe 
shop located within this facility include crude oil, petroleum products, solvents, and 
heavy metals. A part of the plant was also underlain by refuse fill which may be 
associated with various types of contaminants. 

• Potential contaminants associated with the underground storage tanks at the Cannery 
include crude oil. A box printing operation was located within the cannery which would 
also be associated with the use of inks (inks may contain metals), solvents, oil and 
grease, and heavy metals. 

• Potential hazardous wastes associated with the California Belt Railroad on Jefferson 
Street include oil and grease, petroleum products, PNAs, pesticides, PCBs®, lead, and 
cyanide. 

• Hazardous wastes potentially related to land uses on the Hyde Street Pier include 
gasoline and other petroleum products such as diesel, oil, solvents, heavy metals, and 
freon. 

• Potential hazardous wastes related to the fill include PNAs, petroleum products, 
solvents, heavy metals, cyanide, and acids. 

• Potential hazardous wastes related to land uses in the vicinity of the proposed alignment 
since the area was filled include petroleum products, heavy metals, solvents, inks, PCBs, 
and freon. 



^ PNAs are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, many of which are carpinogenic (cancer causing). 
* PCBs are polychlorinated biphenyls. 

150 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Potential Hazardous Waste Sites 

Additional potential sources of hazardous wastes were identified by: (1) a computerized record 
search to identify potential hazardous waste sites within a one-mile radius of the project area;' 
and (2) review of regulatory agency files to characterize the sites Identified by the computerized 
records search that are within a 1 /2-mile radius of the project area; and (3) a visual site 
reconnaissance by Orion Environmental Associates.' Potential sites were identified within a one 
mile radius. Agency files for only those sites within a one-half mile radius were reviewed 
because these sites are considered to have the greatest potential to impact the proposed utility 
alignment if groundwater quality has been affected because groundwater plumes can travel over 
relatively long distances. The regulatory databases used to identify these sites are discussed In 
Appendix E. 

The computerized record search was also used to identify whether there is a permitted 
underground storage tank at the proposed utility alignment, or whether sites along the alignment 
are permitted to generate hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
which is implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Underground 
storage tanks are common sources of soil and groundwater contamination, particularly in older 
tanks where leakage is common. Underground storage tanks have been used in a variety of 
industries for the storage of gasoline, diesel, chemicals, waste oil and other chemicals. Prior to 
regulation in the 1980s, underground storage tanks were not subject to monitoring or provided 
with secondary containment. If a tank leaked, the contents would migrate to the soil, and if 
undetected, could also contaminate the groundwater. Current requirements for underground 
storage tanks include tightness testing on a regular basis to monitor for leakage. The presence 
of a permitted underground storage tank at a site does not necessarily imply that soil or 
groundwater contamination is present, only that such a potential exists. Similarly, identification 
of a site that is permitted to generate hazardous wastes only indicates the potential for 
hazardous substances to be present; it does not necessarily indicate that an environmental 
problem exists. 



^NATEC Environmental Reporting Services, Ltd, Environmental Disclosure Report, January 16, 1995. 
'McDonald, Mary, Orion Environmental Associates, site visit, June 7, 1995. 

151 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

The computerized records search identified a permitted underground storage tank located at 
San Francisco Marine, 442 Jefferson Street. The Mobil Oil Marine Station (foot of Hyde Street) 
was identified as a RCRA permitted hazardous waste generator. No other permitted underground 
storage tanks or hazardous waste generators were located near the planned utility alignment. 
The record search identified 17 sites within a one-mile radius of the proposed utility alignment 
where hazardous substances were known or suspected to have resulted in the presence of 
non-native compounds in the soil or groundwater. These sites are shown in Figure 18 and listed 
In Table 1 4 and discussed below. 

Regulatory agency file reviews were conducted for those sites located within a 1/2-mile radius of 
the project site to characterize the type and extent of contamination identified. If contamination 
extends off-site at these locations, it could potentially affect soil and groundwater quality at the 
project site. Factors which influence the ability for one of these sites to affect the project site 
include groundwater flow direction, off-site extent of contamination, and distance from the 
project site. The general groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the project site is towards 
the north. Based on this, sites located to the south of the project site with contamination 
extending off-site would have the greatest likelihood of affecting soil and groundwater quality at 
the project site, depending on the extent of contamination and their distance from the project 
site. Those sites located more than 1 /2-mile from the project site are not expected to affect soil 
or groundwater quality at the project site because of their distance. 

Two sites identified by the database search were identified on the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list which includes sites 
designated for investigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA). One CERCLIS site is the former gas plant in the block bound by 
Beach, Jefferson, Hyde, and Leavenworth streets (identified as 680 Beach Street) as described 
above. The other CERCLIS site is a laundry service. Both sites were recommended for no 
further action following a preliminary assessment or site inspection.^ Five sites were identified 
on the Cal-Sites list which includes sites that have been identified by the Historical Abandoned 
Site Survey Program and researched by the California Department of Health Sen/ices (currently 



9 A preliminary assessment and site inspection are the first two steps of invtstigation under CERCLA to identify whether a site is 
potentially contaminated. A preliminary assessment generally includes a review of site information and a site visit. If the potential 
for contamination is indicated, then a site inspection is generally conducted to review the site in nnore detail and samples are 
usually collected from areas that are suspected to be contaminated. 



152 




153 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Table 14 

Potential Hazardous Waste Sites within a One-mile Radius of the Project Site. 



Map 

No. Site Name 



Site Address 



CERCUS CAL-SITES CORTESE LUST 



1 Beaverstone Bay 500 
Deveiopment/Sheil 

2 Waterfront Iron Works 335 

3 Unocal 490 

4 SF Muni Kirkland Bus Yard 151 

5 Fresco Properties 350 

6 Vanerp, Dirk Metalsmiths 619 

7 PG&E Gas Plant 680 
/Selby Smelter Site 

8 Golden Gate Refuse Company 600-690 

9 Chestnut Property 650 

10 Red Star Laundry 920 

11 Chevron 1196 



Bay Street 

Bay Street 
Bay Street 

Beach Street 
Beach Street 
Beach Street 
Beach Sfreet 

Chestnut Street 
Chestnut Street 
Chestnut Street 

Columbus Avenue 



12 Port of San Francisco 

13 Oswald Machine Works 

14 Mobil Bulk Plant 

15 Shell 



Base 
2936 

440 

899 



Hyde Street 
Hyde Street 

Jefferson Street 

North Point Street 



16 Industrial Manufacturers 

17 Kodak 



2594 Taylor Sfreet 
3250 Van Ness Avenue 



Abbrevlatk)ns: 

CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensatk)n, and Liability Informatran System 
CAL-SITES = Listing of potential hazardous waste sites maintained by the Department of Toxk: Substances Confrol 
CORTESE - Listing of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites, previously maintained by the Offne of Planning and 
Research 

LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank List maintained by the Regional Water Quality Confrol Board 
Notes: 

See text of Appendix E for explanatk^n of each database identified 
Map number refers to the site number shown on Figure 18. 

Source: Orion Environmental Associates; NATEC Environmental Reporting Servk», January 16, 1995 



154 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



known as the Department of Toxic Substances Control). These sites were identified by the 
agency as potential hazardous waste sites but sampling has not necessarily been conducted to 
evaluate the potential for contamination. Based on the database review, the Department of 
Toxic Substances Control has recommended no further action for three of the sites (including 
Oswald Machine Works which was located adjacent to the proposed utility alignment) but 
recommended a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment for the Golden Gate Refuse Company 
located at 600 to 690 Chestnut Street and Industrial Manufacturers located at 2594 Taylor 
Street.^" A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment would identify the potential risks at these 
sites. However, both of these sites are more than one-half mile from the proposed utility 
alignment and were not reviewed further because they are not expected to affect soil or 
groundwater quality at the proposed utility alignment. 

Nine sites were identified on the Cortese list which includes both potential and confirmed 
hazardous waste sites as of November 1990. Eight of these sites were also identified on the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list which includes sites with confirmed leaking 
underground storage tanks indicating that they were on the Cortese list because of a confirmed 
leak. Of these sites, six are located within one-half mile of the proposed utility alignment; the 
location of each site is shown on Figure 18. Files available at the San Francisco Bay Regional 
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and the Port were 
reviewed for those six sites located within one-half mile of the proposed utility alignment to 
assess possible effects on the subsurface conditions at the proposed utility alignment. 

Based on the information obtained from the file reviews, each of the sites identified is evaluated 
for its potential to affect soil and groundwater quality at the proposed project site in Table 15. 
The location of each site is shown on Figure 18. An underground storage tank previously 
located at the base of the Hyde Street Pier is identified as having a high potential to impact the 
proposed utility alignment. Information regarding the underground storage tank removal by the 
Port was not available in the files maintained by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 



A preliminary Endangerment Assessment is an investigation conducted to determine whether current or past 
waste handling practices have resulted in the release or threatened release of hazardous substances which pose a 
threat to public health or the environment. If the investigation indicates a potential threat, a site investigation and 
subsequent clean up of the site would be required to mitigate any potential threats. 



155 



0) 

E 
E 
o 
O 



■5 Q- 



"O Q) 

« E 



i = Q. < 

c 
o 



E 
« 
c 
o 
O 
k_ 

« 

T3 
C 
3 

o 



E 
« 
c 
o 
O 

"5 

CO 



c 

V 
T3 

"o 
c 



E (o 

OS V) 

Z £ 

tt) "D 

-•e "a 

CO < 



Q. . 
CO o 



3 O CO 

2 -o o 

^0 0) 
O -O .£ 

o « 2 

•si § 

c $ 1 

Sis 

5 c m 
= o to 
O E 5 



c 

g ^ « 

s|.i 

5J J -e 

to (0 P 

O I 
CO « 2 
~ Q- c 

O O (0 

o> S E 
E £ -o 



OJ "O 
CO 



E s 



CO 

T3 

■5 «? 



X c 

el 

CO IS 

0) E 
-I 



0) > 

c c 

c o 

CO v= 

E 5 

<n S 

« >< 
0) 



"S 

O ^ 05 
(0 *- 

"O CO ^ 



- E 

(- CQ 



E ^ 

CO t 



(U 

Q.. 

O 

o . 



E <». 
o 

X c 
K CD 



CO 
3 



CQ 0) 

<u c P 

o E ^ 

to Q. >< 

S;; O <" 

> (U u-i 

CO > o 

0) 0) 5 

CD Q in 



o 

O 3 
CVJ "g 

^ ^ I 

« ^ o 
? o Q 

3 .y S 

2 £ -c 

O)^ 3 
— 3 (O 

-o 2 
^ £ 5 

c o c 

V U 3 

!2 £ o 

t3 « 

3 a3 c 

o * (0 
i; <o 

°- = -i 
0) o « 
9> ^ E 

k- TO. flJ 

li. C3> il 



CO <•- X 

«> (O "S 

C ^ ^ 

* CO <U 

2 >• E 

to -a £ 

c -q = 

o = o 

O " 0) 

■o 2 CO 
a) CO 

> CO O) 



O "5 
^ CO 



0) 

.£ "O 

» "S 
^ c 
-S Z 
'5 o 
> c 

■■2 

o =o 
c c 
v o 

« '« 

IS" 

CO CO 
■_ <D 



■o 



o o 

C (O 



< cr 



0) ^ 

CO 3 

10 J3 
O 

• « 

<o c 

c 5 

0) o 

3 a> 

CO CO 
c m 

u ^ 
E >• 
3 -o 

0) T3 _: 

2 5J £ 
CO i 
0) 0) O 

O 0. « 
i_ CO i 
O 5 >, 

5,31 

c o 0) 

(BUT? 



c o 

— a, 

» 2 

O 35 

£ <o 

o c 

0) ^ (U 



~ r- O 

C o> « 

2*3 

W o 

5 « 

= 5 « 

O CO -D 



V 



- E 
ffeo 



CO 



X c 

Q. 0) 

H CD 



■& 

E 

o 
o 
CO 

<o 

•b 
X 
Q. 
l- 



(0 
3 



CO 
si 

3 ^ 



I 

E 

o 

00 

vi 
< 
Z 
a. 

■« 

8| 

0) Q. 

E c 
o .2 

Z- s 

CO 

3 O) 



CO 

•e £ 

S.55 

O £ 

O V 
U CO 

m O 

S in 

U. CO 



156 



5 

E 
E 
o 
O 



1 t> i E 
0) a P c 

Q. £ Q. < 

c 
o 

■■a 

c 

1 

« 
c 
o 
O 



(0 

I 

c 
o 

a 



CO 

c 

E 
« 
c 
o 
O 

(0 



c 
a> 
•D 
'S 
c 



0) 

E M 

Za> 
k. 

.« -o 

CO < 



a. . 
n o 

:^ z 



o .2" ~ w 2 « 



0) 
OT 

3 O 



u) x: Q 

"S § I 

c > V 

« CQ M 

O « M 

■2 H c 

<d S •£ 

<d *w 

"> P S 

« n .2 

§ E 2 

~ (0 o 

O w u 



^ :S O « 



5 I 2 ^ «= 

to o o -S 

i C i 

w -o — S 

1 Si- § 

g ^ 2 o> E 
^ !S •§ "§ 
w > -o -a 
% ^ w « 



c 
o 

«> 

E 
« 

>. 

C 
CD 



^ 01 
•c O .S! 

5 Q- o> 
£ — 



"8 



q 0) 
V CO 

o S 



;- Q 

d Z 

d>"0 
X I 
CL Q. 



O 

z 

c 

0) 
N 

c 
a> 
m 



1. 
E 



o 

III? 

E c _ w 

§§2 i 

X X c « 
Q. a. « ~ 
I- t- CD O 



CO 
3 



c 
a> 

M 
3 

E 

c o 
2 o 
s IS 

O ^ 



■H c o 

g 3 £ 

^ CO 
C (S 

o o> O 

"■^^ 

— O) 3 
O > K 



0) 
T3 
C 3 
O o 
CO c 

^ o 

Is 

■n « 



2 CO 

5 « 
tS 5 

o w 

<» -n 
w c 



a> 
■o 
o 



. V 
CB "O 
« 3 

c5 o 
« o 

V O 

•1=6 

|i 



O 3 

E S 



^ d 
1^ 



CJ -o 

I S 
ts a. 

v _ 

§1. 

£ « 
^ .2 
§1 

u) a 



c 
5 
o 
c 

c 
3 



^ o 
^ d 

CM 1- 

b> "b 
I I 
Q. Q. 



0) 

c 
c 

M 
Q. 
O 

ts 

(0 
Q. 

£ 



o 

Q. 

a> 



T3 



' in 
o 
d 

c 

0) 
N 

c 

V 
03 



•I 

E 

o 
in 
f 

X 
Ql 
I- 



(0 

w _ 

3 (0 

2 S 
« E 




CM 



O 2 

a CO 
£ « 

c >. 

•C w 

O 10 

a. m 



a 



T5 

V 

55 
c 
o 

OT 
k- 
V 

o 



v 

CL 
W 

•c 

(0 
C2. 



c 

(0 

■I « 

cr £3. 

(u E 

>. CO 

V in 



0) 

w _ 



= 5 



^2 
c 



^2 



CO 
X 



3 



C 

o 

c 
« 

Q. 



in 

v 
o> 

CO 

a 
v 

0) 
CO 

CO 

£ 

3 



•a 

0) 
T3 
■> 

s 

Q. 
« 

E 

3 
C 
0) 

.-e 

CO 



O 

2 
v 

-Q _: 
E c 
3 <u 
c E 

°- S» 
(0 o> 

5 ^ 



CO 

1 -o 

s « 

2 ■§ 

CO T3 

>- !S 

(U ™ 

Q- 5 

w _ 
E « 
2 

.S'to 
= c 
E o 
O 
II ^ 

E Z 



2 c 



« = 3 S Q - 



i1 S 



o 

O w w 

.2t^ 
?E i 

O 3 « 

« O 
P ^ 

(1) 

CO 1— 



CO A: 
0) o ^ 

3 > 

•2 E 



II 



II 1 
« XI o 

^ ^ ^ 

O Q. Q. 
CO I- h- 



I 

II 

X 
Q. 
Q 

u. 

CO 



0) 

a 

w 
■c 

CO 
C3. 



(0 ». 
> O 

0) E 

^ -s 
^1 
I 

a * 

CO O 
E "= 

(0 (1) 

= $ 
E « 

II CO 

E Z 



0) 

a 
^> 
■o 

V 
VP 

'o 

(U 

a 

8 i 
S 2 

2 o 
o o 



CQ 



O 



•5= y C3) CO 



(0 

if 



£ 2 = 



« 4) 

Q) O 

O i: 

3 OJ 

c a. 

CL O 

n ^- 

c/j " 

^ =^ 

Z CL 

CL H- 



3 to 

o c 

i= 3 

0) o 

CL 



CO 



2 CQ 



- 2'u. 

CO Q) (/) 

„ 3 CQ 



C3) 

J CO 
I- 3 



o 



o 

r 
o 

Q. 



a 
o 
CO 



c 
o 
O 



CO 
3 

o 



o 

'CT) 
V 

cr 
o 
u 

(A 



(U v 

£ E 
2 c 

CO 

.£ c 

CO g 

o 3 
C i: 

o 

« o 

1 ^ 

£ o 

.£ 3 

5 S 

S CD 

« t£ 
«= o 

n 

CQ _ 
o 

iri c 

(35 0) 

^ E 
- c 

o o 



(55 

T3 
C 
CO 

o' 
o 

'o 
c 

CO 



CO 



157 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

Control Board. However, a letter from the Port indicates that petroleum hydrocarbons were 
Identified In a soil sample from a boring drilled In the proposed utility alignment/^ 

The former Mobil Oil Bulk Plant Is located within the proposed project area and is considered to 
have a moderate potential for Impacting the proposed utility alignment because it Is located 
approximately 1 50 feet to the east. Petroleum related compounds have been identified In both 
the soil and groundwater at this site and up to two inches of free product^ ^ have been 
Identified on the groundwater. This site Is currently undergoing remediation. 

The remaining four sites are located to the southwest of the proposed project. Free product has 
been Identified on the groundwater at three of these sites. However, each of these sites is 
considered to have a low potential for affecting the proposed utility alignment because of their 
distance from the proposed project and because they are not located directly upgradient of the 
proposed project (the general direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the proposed 
project Is northward). 

Previous Site Investigations 

A site Investigation was conducted in June 1989 as part of the planning for the proposed 
Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center. As part of this investigation, three soil borings were 
drilled to a depth of five feet within the proposed utility alignment (see Figure 16, page 103 for 
location of borings). A soil sample from the bottom of each boring was analyzed for Title 22 
metals (including lead)^" and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor 



" Port of San Francisco, 1989. Letter from Jim Read to Department of Public Health. October 3. 

Petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel are immiscible with water when in their pure fonn. Because they are 
generally lighter than water, they will float on top of the groundwater surface when present and are called "free producf. 

'■"AGS, Inc., 1989. Reld Sampling and Chemical Laboratory Testing, Fishennan's Wharf Seafood Center. August 22. 

Title 22 metals include a list of 17 metals contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations that are 
considered persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances. The metals include antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. 



'^Analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons identifies petroleum hydrocarbons present in a sample. The hydrocarbons 
can be distinguished as gasoline, diesel, oil, or other petroleum hydrocarbons based on the range of hydrocarbons 
identified in the chromatogram for the sample. 



158 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

Metals are naturally occurring in soil and there are no regulatory criteria to identify what levels of 
metals may be potentially hazardous to public health and/or the environment. For screening 
purposes, the total metals concentrations are compared to the total threshold limit concentration 
and ten times the soluble threshold limit concentration which are used by the State of California 
to classify a waste. Only those metals concentrations that exceed these criteria are discussed 
In this section. 

Mercury was identified at a total concentration of 2.7 milligrams per kilogram in the soil sample 
from Boring Bl and at 2.1 milligrams per kilogram in the soil sample from Boring B2. These 
concentrations are greater than ten times the soluble threshold limit concentration of 0.2 
milligrams per liter for mercury. Thallium was identified at 70.1 milligrams per kilogram in the 
soil sample from Boring B2; this concentration is greater than ten times the soluble threshold 
limit concentration of 7.0 milligrams per liter for thallium. These are the only metals identified in 
the soil samples that exceeded the total threshold limit concentration or ten times the soluble 
threshold limit concentration. The total concentrations do not exceed ten times the soluble 
threshold limit by much. However, a waste extraction test would be required to determine 
whether the soluble concentrations exceed the soluble threshold limit concentrations. 



Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline was identified at 78 milligrams per kilogram and total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil was identified at 412 milligrams per kilogram in the soil 
sample from Boring B3. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were not identified in the soil samples 
from Borings Bl and B2. The Port of San Francisco has stated that Boring B3 was installed in 
the vicinity of a "long since removed" underground storage tank.^' The location of this boring 
is described as Site 12 in Table 14. Based on current Regional Water Quality Control Board 
policy, the soil removed for installation of the utilities may be placed back in the utility 



Based on regulations contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, a waste would be considered 
hazardous for disposal purposes if the total concentration of a metal exceeded the total threshold limit concentration 
(TTLC) or if the soluble concentration exceeded the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC). A weiste extraction test 
is required to identify the soluble concentration of a metal. Because this test involves a ten to one dilution of the 
sample, the soluble concentration could not exceed the STLC unless the total concentration is at least equal to ten times 
the STLC. If the total concentration is less than ten times the STLC, a waste extraction test would not be required and 
the waste would not be considered hazardous. 

" Port of San Francisco, 1989. Letter from Jim Read. Port of San Francisco, to Les Lum, San Francisco Department of 
Public Health. October 3. 



159 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

excavation. However, excess soil would not be suitable for unrestricted disposal, as 
discussed on page 161, because of the levels of petroleum hydrocarbons identified. Treatment 
or off-site disposal of this soil would be required. 

Analysis of soil samples during the 1989 Investigation included analysis of only Title 22 metals 
and petroleum hydrocarbons. Based on historical land uses in the vicinity of the proposed utility 
alignment there are additional hazardous materials that have been used and may potentially be 
present in the soil. The types of hazardous materials that may be present in the soil due to 
historic land uses are summarized in Table 13, page 148 (see Figure 16, ENVIRONMENTAL 
SETTING, page 103 for the locations of the addresses referenced). In addition, the "Maher" 
Ordinance requires analysis for additional chemicals that may be present in the soil; the 
analyses required by the "Maher" Ordinance include inorganic and bioaccumulative 
substances,^® volatile organic compounds,^" RGBs, pH, flammability, cyanides, sulfides, and 
methane and other flammable gasses as well as other chemicals that may be required by the 
Department of Public Works. 

Sampling of the soil for analysis of additional chemicals would be required by the "Maher" 
Ordinance prior to construction once the specific location of ground disturbing activities is 
identified. If the sampling identifies chemicals present at concentrations that could potentially 
threaten public health and /or the environment, the "Maher" Ordinance would require submittal of 
a site mitigation plan and remediation of the site to acceptable clean up levels as described in 
MITIGATION MEASURES, page 169. 

Disposal of Soil 

The Port of San Francisco estimates that more than 50 cubic yards of soil would be excavated 
for the installation of the proposed utilities. Sampling of any excess soil that could not be 



"Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1995. Mennorandum from Stephen I. Morse, 
Acting Executive Director, to All Utilities, Public and Private. August 18. 

"The required inorganic persistent and bioaccumulative substances are listed in Section 66699(b) of Titie 22 of the 
California Code of Regulations. 

^"The required volatile organic compounds are listed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 122, Appendix 
D, Table II. 

160 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

placed back in the excavation would be required to classify the soil for disposal purposes. If the 
soil is classified as nonhazardous but contains petroleum hydrocarbons, it may be treated at a 
nearby City owned bioremediation facility located at Pier 96 and disposed of as a nonhazardous 
waste. If the soil is classified as a hazardous or restricted waste, it may be disposed of at an 
appropriately permitted off-site disposal facility. Depending on the chemical quality it may be 
disposed of at a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal facility within California. Soil with 
petroleum hydrocarbon levels greater than 100 milligrams per kilogram must be treated or 
disposed of at a Class I or II landfill. Soil with detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons 
below 100 milligrams per kilogram can be disposed of at a Class III landfill.^^ Alternatively, the 
soil may be disposed of at an out-of-state disposal facility that would be subject to federal, state, 
and local regulations. Additional sampling and analysis is identified as a mitigation measure to 
determine the appropriate disposal method for the soil (see MITIGATION MEASURES, Section 
V.H, Hazards). If the soil is classified as a hazardous waste, hauling and disposal of the soil 
would require a hazardous waste manifest and must be done by a state certified hazardous 
waste hauler.^^ 

EXPOSURE TO SUBSURFACE HAZARDOUS WASTES DURING CONSTRUCTION 

During soil excavation, humans could be exposed to dust emissions, chemical vapors, or other 
airborne contaminants. Exposure could occur through inhalation of vapors, fumes, or 
contaminated dust; through direct contact with contaminated materials; or through direct or 
indirect ingestion. The excavation contractor would be required to comply with federal and state 
regulations designed to protect worker and public health from exposure to hazardous materials. 
A Site Health and Safety Plan would be prepared which would address measures necessary to 
protect worker and public health during excavation and disposal of the soil (see MITIGATION 
MEASURES, Section V.H, Hazards). The plan would establish policies and procedures to 
protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by hazardous materials present in 



^' All California landfills have been divided by regulatory authority into the categories of Class I, Class II, or Class III 
facilities. Only Class I facilities can accept hazardous wastes, although the chemical concentrations nnust be less than 
the federal land disposal restriction treatment standards (land ban). Class II and III facilities can accept nonhazardous 
wastes that meet acceptance criteria determined by the state within broad guidelines for each class of landfill. Each 
landfill also has individual acceptance criteria. Most ordinary household solid wastes are disposed of at Class III landfills. 

"Waste haulers are certified in accordance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 13, Section 

66263.17. 



161 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

the soil, and It would be prepared in accordance with federal and California OSHA regulations 
for health and safety plans. During construction, a dust control program would also be 
Implemented, if necessary, to minimize public health and air quality impacts associated with 
chemical laden dust (see MITIGATION MEASURES. Section V.H, Hazards). 

The California OSHA regulates worker exposure to hazardous materials. To reduce the potential 
for public health risks due to dust emissions during construction activities, dust control 
measures would be taken to reduce visible dust emissions and air quality pollutants. This would 
include regular watering of any exposed soil (using non-potable water as required by Ordinance 
175-91) and covering the stockpiles and trucks carrying spoil materials. 

To reduce the potential for risks to public safety, a fence would be erected around any area 
where chemicals have been identified in the soil from the time that ground surfaces are exposed 
until the time that all remedial activities have been completed. Site access would also be 
restricted to necessary personnel. Warning signs prohibiting access by the general public onto 
the excavation site would also be posted at all construction access points. 

DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENTS 

It is estimated that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged to create 
the planned berths. This would require permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sediment sampling in 1994 indicated that the 
sediments near Pier 45 contain detectable levels of antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, 
mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, sulfides, tributyltin, PNAs, phthalates, and oil and grease.^^ 
Bioassay results indicate that the sediments have less toxic effects than those from Alcatraz 
Island; based on this it is expected that the sediments would be suitable for disposal at the 
Alcatraz disposal site. Minimal worker or public exposure to sediments would be expected 
during sediment dredging and disposal. 



"Advanced Biological Testing, 1995, Results of Chemical, Physical, and Bioassay Testing of Sediments Proposed for 
Maintenance Dredging at Fisherman's Wharf, Port of San Francisco. January 12. 



162 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLING DURING HARBOR AND PIER OPERATION 

Hazardous materials handling within the project area would be improved with the proposed 
project. As part of the improved facilities, a new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline from the 
seawall to the fuel dock and new spill containment equipment would be installed. The new 
pipeline would include automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, a remote operated 
shut off switch, and pressure sensitive valves which would reduce the potential for accidental 
spillage or leakage from the fuel delivery system. Addition of spill containment equipment would 
allow prompt containment of any material that may be accidently released. These measures 
would reduce the potential for worker and public exposure to hazardous materials used at the 
fueling facility. Lighting would also be installed at the fuel dock. 

The Port will continue to provide the above ground tank to collect waste oil from fisherman who 
use the harbor; this waste oil is recycled by an outside contractor to the Port of San Francisco. 
The potential for illegal dumping of waste oil into the Bay by fisherman is and will continue to be 
reduced with or without the project because this facility is provided by the Port. 



163 



(This page was intentially left blank) 



164 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified that would reduce 
or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Some of these measures 
have been, or would be, voluntarily adopted by the Port and thus are proposed; some are under 
consideration by the project sponsor. Implementation of some measures may be the 
responsibility of other agencies. Measures under consideration may be required by the Port 
Commission, or the Planning Commission as conditions of project approval, if the project were 
to be approved. Each measure and its status is discussed below. 

There are measures that are now required by law that were enacted for the purpose of and 
serve to prevent potential impacts from a proposed project. They are summarized here for 
Informational purposes. These measures include: observance of state and federal OSHA safety 
requirements related to handling and disposal of hazardous materials; dredging; police and fire 
protection; utilities sen/ices; and cultural resources. 

No impacts are identified for Water Quality, Land Use and Zoning, Marine Biology, Air Quality, 
Public Utilities, Hazards or Transportation. These areas do not require mitigation; however, 
several improvement measures have been suggested to the Port during preparation of this EIR 
and many of these measures are included as part of the proposed project. All of these 
measures are described in the following section. 

A. WATER QUALITY (Best Management Practices) 

Because of the proximity of the project site to Aquatic Park and the concern about water quality 
issues, the Port has agreed to expand their existing "Best Management Practices Plan" to 
include specific measures described in Section IV, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS for protecting 
and enhancing water quality in the harbor. 



165 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



The Port has in place a "Best Management Plan" for maintenance dredging, oil spills, and 
cleanup of floatables in the Harbor. A brief summary of measures required by law and those 
described as part of the project follows: 

MEASURES REQUIRED BY LAW 

1 . Oil spill response in the Harbor is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act and 
the California Oil Spill Response Act, with enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard 
and the California Department of Fish and Game, respectively. These 
regulations require clean-up of fuel spills and authorize assessment of penalties 
for violation of water quality regulations. 

2. Dredging in the Harbor and disposal of dredge spoils is regulated by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and 
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission. The Regional Water Ouality Control Board certifies that water 
quality objectives are met as part of the permit approval process for dredging. 

3. Other wastes from boats (floatables) are regulated by the Port as part of the 
Rules and Regulations for Commercial Fishing Vessels. Item No. 847 under 
these regulations states that ' no person shall throw, discharge or deposit from 
any vessel or from the shore or float or otherwise any kind or refuse or sewage 
whatsoever into or upon the waters of the harbor, or in, on or upon the banks, 
walls, sidewalks, or beaches or any waters within the jurisidiction of the San 
Francisco Port Commission. All garbage must be removed from the area.' Item 
No. 34, Section 8C, Item 847 under the Port Rules and Regulations states that 
'No person shall dump or discharge oil, spirits, flammable liquids or 
contaminated bilge water into any area under the jurisdiction of the San 
Francisco Port Commission.' The Port Wharfinger is responsible for enforcing 
these rules. 



166 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 

MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

1. The Port currently maintains and would continue to maintain a spill prevention 
and response plan that specifies procedures to follow in the event of a fuel spill. 
The plan delineates source identification, clean-up, and notification (including 
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard) procedures to contain and minimize 
any effect of a fuel spill in the Bay. The Wharfinger is designated as the Local 
Response Coordinator for the Harbor and maintains a current Oil Spill 
Notification List of federal and state agencies to be contacted in the event of a 
spill, to provide information on the nature and location of the spill. Emergency 
fuel clean-up equipment is maintained at the existing fuel dock and at the 
Wharfinger's office and includes absorbant booms and absorbant pads. The 
Port would continue to train personnel in the use of this equipment and would 
continue to educate boat owners/operators about illigal discharges and spills in 
the Bay and in harbor waters. 

2. The Port is proposing installation of new facilities to minimize the potential for 
fuel leaks from the storage tanks to the fuel dock. These would replacement of 
the fuel delivery pipeline from the seawall to the fuel dock that would include 
automatic shut off features; a leak detection system; remote operated shutoff 
switch and pressure sensitive features. 

3. The Port is proposing an oil-water separator for the fuel dock area. 
Impermeable surfaces (docks and parking areas) would be designed to collect 
runoff in a depressed area directing stormwater to the oil-water separator prior 
to disposal to the Bay. 

4. The Port is proposing a pump-out station at the fuel dock for disposal of 
chemical toilet waste on board boats in the harbor. The pump-out would have a 
capacity of 20 gallons per minute and would be connected to the City's sanitary 
sewer system. The proposed pump-out would reduce the likelihood of illegal 
discharges to the Bay. The wharfinger would be responsible for enforcing the 
use of the pump-out by boats in the harbor. 



167 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



5. The Port, in coordination with the San Francisco Fire Department, will continue 
to use a fireboat to periodically hose off the breakwater during outgoing tides so 
that debris and animal wastes are dispersed into the Bay and not into the 
Harbor. 

6. The Port will continue to use a work skiff one or two hours each day to clean up 
floating debris in the harbor. The Port will increase the frequency of the skiff 
operation, on an as needed basis. 

7. The Port proposes a dock design that includes boat berths enclosed on three 
sides by floats encased with foam pontoons that would ride slightly below the 
surface of the water. No berthing would be provided on the west side of the 
dock, nearest Aquatic Park. The westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible 
"skirt which would eliminate gaps between floats. 

8. The Port would coordinate with swimmers at Aquatic Park regarding scheduling 
of dredging activities to avoid conflict with scheduled activities. 

9. Port construction specifications would include use of temporary wraps for piles 
removed in the harbor. This will reduce the release of particles to the Bay. 

10. The Port will continue not to conduct dredging activities during herring season. 

11. The Port will continue to coordinate with restaurant owners and nearby 
commercial operators to improve housekeeping practices (such as improved 
grease disposal bins, dumpsters with side covers, increased cover garbage 
receptacles, sidewalk sweeping, etc.) to reduce litter and trash entering harbor 
wastes. 

12. The Port will continue the weekday supervision of the harbor and will consider 
adding weekend supervision of boat activities. 



168 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



B. PUBLIC SERVICES 

REQUIRED BY LAW OR CODE 

1. The San Francisco Fire Department, Bureau of Fire Prevention, cliecl<s plans for 
alterations and new construction of buildings for compliance with laws and 
ordinances related to egress, fire protection, and fire spread control.^ 
Implementation of the proposed project would require compliance with local 
regulations, which might include installation of: a minimum of two suction 
hydrants on Pier 45; dry and wet standpipe outlets; additional fire alarm call 
boxes; sprinkler system in Sheds A and C; floating marine diesel fuel depot - 
automatic fire suppressant equipment; signage for egress; and provisions for fire 
lanes and curb marking and installation of low and high pressure hydrants, to 
meet fire department regulations. 

0. HAZARDS 

There were no significant impacts identified in relation to hazardous wastes. The measures 
identified below are those that will be required by law to address the potential presence of 
hazardous wastes within the project area. 

MEASURES REQUIRED BY LAW 

1. Prior to demolition of the Bell Smoked Fish Building, the Port will ensure that a building 
survey be conducted to identify polychlorinated biphenyl- (PCB) containing electrical or 
hydraulic equipment, lead-based paint, fluorescent lights potentially containing mercury 
vapors, and other potential hazardous building materials. If necessary to protect the 
public health, construction workers, or the environment, removal and abatement of 
identified hazardous building materials or other hazardous substances will be conducted 
prior to demolition or renovation of existing structures. The abatement will be 
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management 



' San Francisco Fire Department Annual Report, 1992 - 1992, June 1, 1994. 



169 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



District, tlie California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and federal, state 
and local laws including Titles 22 and 23 of the California Code of Regulations 
(hazardous materials and water quality) and the City's Hazardous Materials Ordinance. 
The Port will ensure that demolished piles are appropriately disposed of. Approximately 
120 piles would be demolished and disposed of. 

The Port will ensure that the "Maher" Ordinance be followed for excavation of more than 
50 cubic yards of soil. First, a site investigation must be conducted, including a 
minimum of three soil borings and analysis of a minimum of three soil samples for 
inorganic persistent and bioaccumulative substances as listed in Section 66699 (b) of 
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations; volatile organic compounds; polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons; total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and oil; oil 
and grease; polychlorinated biphenyls; pesticides; pH; flammability; cyanides; sulfides; 
methane and other flammable gasses; and ammonia. The results of the analyses will 
also be used to identify appropriate disposal or treatment options for any soil produced 
during excavation. 

Upon completion of the investigation, the Port will ensure that a soil sampling and 
analysis report be prepared to describe the methods and results of the investigation. In 
accordance with the "Maher" Ordinance, the report will be submitted to the San 
Francisco Department of Public Works, and the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health. 

If the soil sampling and analysis report indicates the presence of hazardous wastes in 
the soil, then the Port will ensure that a site mitigation plan is submitted to the San 
Francisco Department of Public Works and the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health. The site mitigation plan will be prepared by a qualified professional and include 
a determination as to whether the hazardous materials in the soil are causing or likely to 
cause substantial environmental or health and safety risk as well as measures identified 
to mitigate the risks. Any recommended soil sampling and analysis to demonstrate 
appropriate mitigation will be described in the plan. 

170 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



In accordance with the "Maher" Ordinance, the Port will ensure that any mitigation 
measures identified be carried out. Upon completion, a qualified professional will certify 
that all of the mitigation measures described in the mitigation report were performed and 
verified by conducting follow-up soil sampling and analysis. 

3. The Port will ensure that the construction contractor provides and implements a Health 
and Safety Plan prepared by a certified industrial hygienist to meet all applicable federal, 
state, and local environmental and worker safety laws. The plan will establish policies 
and procedures to protect worker and the public from potential hazards posed by 
hazardous materials at the project site, and it will be prepared according to federal and 
California OSHA regulations for hazardous waste health and safety plans. Title 29 of the 
Federal Code of Regulations, Section 1910.124, and Title 8 of the California Code of 
Regulations Section 3203, include requirements for the preparation of health aznd safety 
plans. The Site Health and Safety Plan will include items such as the following, as 
applicable to site conditions: identification of contaminants, potential hazards, material 
handling procedures, dust suppression measures, personal protection clothing and 
devices, controlled access to the site, health and safety training requirements, 
monitoring equipment to be used during construction to verify health and safety of the 
workers and the public, measures to protect worker and public health and safety, and 
emergency response procedures. 



D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Initial Study (see Appendix A.I, Page A1) summarized information from "A Cultural 
Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center Project Area and Environs" 
(March 1989) and determined that no further analysis of this topic was needed in this EIR. The 
Initial Study provided that the program of archaeological monitoring described in the 1989 report 
would mitigate the potentially significant impacts of the project and is therefore included in the 
EIR. 



171 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



MEASURE INCLUDED IN PROJECT 

1. Given the strong possibility of encountering the remains of cultural or historic 
artifacts or features within the project site, the Port would retain the services of 
an archaeologist(s) with expertise in both prehistoric and ethnographic materials 
and maritime history. The archaeologist would supervise a program of on-site 
monitoring during site excavation and would record observations in a permanent 
log. Should cultural or historic artifacts be found following commencement of 
excavation activities, the archaeologist would assess the significance of the find, 
and immediately report to the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) and the 
President of the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB). Upon receiving 
the advice of the consultants and the LPAB, the ERO would recommend specific 
mitigation measures, if necessary. The monitoring program, whether or not 
there are finds of significance, would result in a written report to be submitted 
first and directly to the ERO, with a copy to the Port. 

Excavation or construction activities which might damage discovered cultural 
resources would be suspended for a total maximum or four weeks over the 
course of construction to permit inspection, recommendation and retrieval, if 
appropriate. 

2. If cultural resources of potential significance are discovered, an appropriate 
security program would be implemented to prevent looting or destruction. Any 
discovered cultural artifact assessed a significant by the archaeologist upon 
concurrence by the ERO and the President of the LPAB, would be placed in a 
repository designated for such materials or displayed in a public place to be 
determined in conjunction with the ERO and the President of the LPAB. 



172 



VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 
IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 



In accordance with Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and with 
Sections 15040, 15081 and 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this Section is to 
identify impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to an insignificant level by mitigation 
measures included as part of the proposed project, or by other mitigation measures that could be 
implemented. 

No significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented 
have been identified. 



173 



(This page was intentially left blank) 



174 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 



This Section identifies alternatives to the proposed project and discusses environmental impacts 
associated with each alternative. The Port of San Francisco could approve an alternative instead 
of the project if the decision makers believed the alternative would be more appropriate for the 
site(s). 

The range of reasonable alternatives must focus on those alternatives that can feasibly 
accomplish most basic project purposes and avoid or reduce one or more of the projects 
significant impacts. The EIR is required to "identify and explain the rationale for rejecting those 
alternatives considered but removed from detailed study. The factors taken into account when 
selecting an alternative may include site suitability, economic viability, availability of 
Infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional 
boundaries, and whether the project proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise 
have access to the alternative." (CEQA Amended Section 15088.5, September 19,1994) 

Sufficient information on alternatives is required to allow meaningful evaluation and comparison 
with the proposed project. As part of the environmental review process for the Hyde Street 
Harbor/ Pier 45 project, the City has analyzed three alternatives that would feasibly accomplish 
most basic project purposes. The Port, the project sponsor, has not rejected any of the three 
alternatives, however, the Hyde Street Harbor, maximum expansion alternative proposed by the 
Port in 1988 is not appropriate at this time, given the decreasing volume of fish being landed by 
commercial fishing boats in the Bay Area. This alternative is retained for informational purposes 
and for future possible consideration by the Port. Based on environmental and public review, 
the Port will select an apparent best alternative for detailed design and implementation. 

One alternative design for the Harbor and Harbor Services Area is considered, and two 
alternative uses of Sheds A and C on Pier 45 are considered. Because most physical changes 
for each of the alternatives are the same as for the proposed project, the analysis focuses on 
features or uses that would have differences. For Alternative A, the additional Harbor berths and 
Harbor Services Area alternative, the analysis focuses on potential effects to water quality and 



175 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

No Project 



marine biology from an expanded dock area (86 floating berths compared with 40 floating berths 
for the proposed project). For the Pier 45, Sheds A and C alternative uses (alternatives B & C), 
the analysis focuses on identifying differences in traffic and parking impacts. None of the 
alternatives, including the proposed project would generate more than 2,000 vehicles per day, 
which is the threshold used by Bay Area Air Quality Management District considered capable of 
producing air quality problems, therefore mobile emissions are not addressed in this DEIR. 



In addition to reasonable alternatives to the project, CEQA requires that the EIR evaluate the "No 
Project" Alternative. The No Project Alternative analysis must discuss existing conditions as well 
as reasonably foreseeable future conditions without the project based on current plans and 
available infrastructure. 



NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 



The No Project Alternative would consist of leaving the Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 Sheds A 
and C as they exist in their present condition. Information describing the existing conditions of 
the project area is in Section III. SETTING. The key features of the No Project Alternative are 
summarized below. 



HYDE STREET HARBOR 

• No change; retain 116 assigned boat slips + 14 rafted boats in Fisherman's Inner 
and Outer Lagoons, and unauthorized or controlled anchoring of boats in the outer 
harbor would continue. 

PIER 45 

• Sheds A and C - retain existing storage of fishing gear, parking (50 vehicles In 
sheds, 120 spaces in valley, 68 spaces on "forepier") 

• Continue special events (Dickens Fair, Festa, private parties, sporting events) 

• Retain exhibit space for arts, cultural exhibits 

• Retain storage for fishing gear, work area 

• Retain staging area for visiting ships 

• Retain Pampanito area 

• Retain 1 ,000-sq. ft. office space in Shed A 

• Retain public access (informal) along outsid§ aprons of Pier 45 



176 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 

Without the development of the Proposed Project or alternatives at either Pier 45 or Hyde Street 
Harbor, there would be no change in the existing uses. At the Hyde Street Harbor boats would 
continue to side-tie and raft to other boats, and facilities for these activities would not be 
upgraded. No pump-out or restrooms would be available to fishing vessels or operators. On 
Pier 45, it is anticipated that the fish handling in Sheds B and D will increase and fully occupy 
the 140,000 sq. ft. The "valley" would continue to be used by commercial fish trucks. 

Prior to the earthquake. Sheds A and C were partially vacant and provided support space for the 
area merchants, parking and space for special events. Without the development of the 
Proposed Project or alternatives, it is anticipated that Sheds A and C would serve to support the 
commercial fishing activities and would continue to be used for special events, such as the 
annual Festa Italiana. Transportation impacts associated with the No Project conditions would 
be similar to existing conditions. 

ALTERNATIVE A - HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR, MAXIMUM EXPANSION 

The Maximum Expansion Alternative for the Fishing Harbor and Harbor Sen/ices resulted from 
the 1988 Feasibility Study, discussed in Section II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Survey information 
in 1988 defined future needs of the commercial fishing industry and indicated a need for an 
expanded facility for fishing boats and the need for a new Harbormaster's Building in the harbor 
area. The study sun/eyed 56 marinas used by commercial fishing boats in the San Francisco 
area and identified a need for 51 permanent and 67 transient berths at the Hyde Street Harbor. 
The 1 988 study assumed that improvements to the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor would meet the 
needs of transient commmercial fishing boats in the harbor. 

Survey information in 1994-1995 indicated that the increased need no longer exists therefore this 
project alternative is not now considered reasonable by the Port staff. However, this alternative 
has been retained in this EIR for comparison purposes with the Proposed Project. In the event 
that the needs of the commercial fishing industry return to 1988 conditions in the relatively near 
future (5-10 years) this analysis could aid in consideration of future expansion of harbor facilities. 
The facilities for the Hyde Street Harbor, Maximum Expansion Alternative are shown in Figure 19 
and briefly summarized below. Table 16 presents the quantity of Bay fill for Alternative A. 



177 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 




VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 



TABLE 16: BAY AND SHORELINE BAND FILL BY BCDC CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES 



Description Proposed Project * Alternative A 
Berthing 

Floats (SF) 17,700 32,150 

Piles Supporting Floating Dock (CY) 270 635 

Pier (in the Bay) 

Solid Fill (SF) 1,000 

(CY) 282 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 4,875 20,725 

Pile- Supported Fill Removed (SF) (1,420) (2,820) 

New Pier (in the Shoreline Band) 

Coverage, Solid Fill (SF) 7,150 8,900 

(CY) 715 1,175 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 2,325 3,890 

Pile-Supported Fill Removed (SF) (760) (760) 

TOTALS** 

Coverage/Fill in the Bay (SF) 22,723 54,228 

Supporting by Piles (CY) 270 917 

Coverage/Fill in the Shoreline Band (SF) 9,475 12,790 

Solid Fill (CY) 715 1,175 



Notes: * Alternatives B & C involve interior changes to the sheds on Pier 
45; would have same amount of fill as proposed project. 
** Does not include Fill Removed of 2,180 SF 
SF = Square Foot of fill 
CY = Cubic Yards of fill 

Source: Port of San Francisco. 1996 



179 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 

HYDE STREET HARBOR 

• Retain existing 116 assigned boat slips + 14 rafted boats in Fisherman's Wharf Inner 
and Outer Lagoons (same as proposed) 

• Construct new harbor for 1 16 boats, including 86 floating berths, 10 side tie spaces 
and 10 stern tie spaces (compared with 60 boat proposed project; 126 piles 
compared with 53 piles for proposed) 

• Construct new fuel dock (compared with use of existing fuel dock) 

• 4,100-sq. ft. new Harbormaster's Building 

• 32,150-sq. ft.of Bay cover (compared with 17,700 sf for proposed) 

• 24 parking spaces approximately 200 feet south of the Pier on former "Bell Smoked 
Fish" site (same as proposed) 

• 28 parking spaces on Pier (compared with 21 spaces proposed) 

There were no substantial differences in traffic or parking for this Alternative compared to the 
proposed project because vehicle traffic associated with commercial fishing boats in the harbor 
does not occur during peak hours at critical intersections. Based on information in the 1988 
Feasibility Study\ fishing boats are launched throughout northern California, therefore a one-to- 
one ratio of vehicles to boats in Fisherman's Wharf harbor is not appropriately assumed. The 
larger berthing facility would accommodate about 60 more boats than the proposed project. 
Using the same assumptions about the ratio of vehicles to boats, it is appropriate to assume that 
not all of the additional boats in the harbor would result in additional vehicles. 

Water quality conditions would be expected to remain similar to existing conditions, which is 
generally within the same range as water quality from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay and in 
compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives because no direct relationship has been 
made between the fishing boats and water quality effects. No differences are identified for water 
quality between the maximum expansion harbor and the proposed project or no project. 
Construction of a new fuel dock would reduce the potential for future spills or accidental 
releases compared with use of the existing fuel dock. There would be short-term water quality 
effects (increased turbidity and suspended solids) during construction, but following construction 
conditions would be expected to be in compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives 
similar to existing conditions, the No Project alternative, and the proposed project. 



' Fisherman's Wharf Harbor Feasibility Study. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, et al, June 1, 1988. 



180 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative B 



Alternative A would increase the extent of Bay cover from floating berths by 14,450 sq. ft. 
compared with the proposed project. The total increase in fill/cover over the proposed project 
would be 31,505 sq. ft. of cover and 647 cubic yards of fill in the Bay, and 3,315 sq. ft. of cover 
and 460 cy of fill in the Shoreline Band. The Bay Plan would allow bay fill for water-oriented 
purposes, such as commercial fishing. Within the Shoreline Band, BCDCs primary criteria for 
evaluation is maximum public access; Alternative A would provide the same public access as the 
proposed project. 

ALTERNATIVE B - PIER 45 SHEDS A AND C, CONFERENCE CENTER FOCUS 

The differences between the Pier 45 Alternatives (B and C) and the Proposed Project are to be 
found in the interior building design and uses of the pier Sheds A and C. The conceptual design 
for the Conference Center Focus of the sheds is shown on Figure 20, and is summarized below. 

PIER 45 - 205,000 square feet of new uses 

• Visitor Center- sq. ft. (compared to 25,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Conference Center Focus - 60,000 sq. ft. of multi-functional conference facility and 
event space to be used for workshops, meetings and conferences, receptions, 
seafood trade shows, fishery festivals, (compared to 20,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Parking - 50,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed project) 

• Retail - 40,000 sq. ft., a variety of retail would be available to enhance the financial 
feasibility of the Center-seafood snack bar, theme kiosks, charterboat services (fish 
cleaning, packing, shipping); marine arts & crafts, aquaculture displays, books, 
videos are envisioned, (same as proposed) 

• Office Space - 10,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

• Outdoor Public Access - 45,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

Travel Demand: The Conference Center alternative, which does not include the visitor center use 
as part of the proposed project, but has a greater square footage of conference facility, would 
be assumed to generate a higher number of vehicle-trips than the Proposed Project. This 
alternative would generate about 100 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour (compared 
to 58 for the proposed project), 78 vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour (compared to 
81 vehicle trips for the proposed project), and 134 vehicle trips during the weekend midday peak 
hour (compared with 98 for the proposed project). This represents an increase over the 



181 




182 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative B 



Proposed Project of 36 vehicles during the weel<end midday peak hour. During the weekday 
PM peak hour, the Conference Center Alternative would generate three fewer vehicles than the 
Proposed Project. 

Traffic Operating Conditions: T he number of project-generated vehicles was reviewed for the 
two intersections closest to Pier 45, Taylor and Jefferson Street and Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero, to determine the percentage of project vehicles compared to total traffic at the 
Intersection. Under the Conference Center alternative, the project contribution to the total 
intersection volumes would be less than 10%, except at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero, where during the AM peak hour, project trips would account for 23% of total 
intersection volumes. (See Table 17) 

The Conference Center alternative would operate at LOS conditions similar to the Proposed 
Project. All intersections would operate at LOS B or better. 

Transit/Pedestrian Conditions: 

The Conference Center alternative would, in general, result in larger number of transit riders than 
the Proposed Project. During the weekday PM peak hour and the weekend midday peak hour, 
the Conference Center alternative would generate 107 and 188 transit rider trips, respectively. 
These trips would be distributed between the existing transit lines, the cable cars and the F- 
Market line. This represents a decrease of three transit trips during the weekday PM peak hour, 
and an increase of 53 trips during the weekend midday peak hour. It is anticipated that these 
trips would be accommodated within the existing and planned transit lines which currently 
operate with available capacity for additional passengers. 

Under the Conference Center alternative, the LOS for conditions for pedestrians at the 
crosswalks at Jefferson and Taylor Streets would be the same as identified for the Proposed 
Project. All pedestrian crosswalks would operate at LOS D or better, except for the east 
crosswalk which would operate at LOS E. 



183 



(A 
C 

_o 

c 
o 
o 

>. 

(Q 

■o 

I 



u a> 



•SO- 

c w 

o a> 

K. 

a, 2 E 

o fli O 



S < 



i 



< 



2& 
< 



31 



< 



21 



2& 
< 



£3 



I 



S 



o 

m 



1 



8 



a 



I* 
a 



CD 



CO 



GQ 



00 



GO 



CQ 



GQ 



CO 



CD 



CQ 



GQ 



GQ 



GQ 



CQ 



CQ 



00 



CD 



GQ 



GQ 



CQ 



CO 



GQ 



CQ 



CQ 



CM 
o6 



CO 



GQ 



GQ 



GQ 



CX> 



O 



CO 



o 

c 
o 
(/) 

I 



Q- is 

C J3 
UJ 

0) 

!t= CD 



GQ CQ 



CO CO 

o6 CD 



GQ GQ 



Oi 00 

iri CD 



CQ CQ 



CO 

o6 CD 



CQ CQ 



iri CO 



CQ CQ 



CO 

c6 CD 



CQ CQ 



CT) O) 
IT) CD 



GQ < 



O CO 
oci CO 



CQ < 



00 



Inr 

lor 


0) 




T3 








X 




!c 


O 


o 


(TJ 


(0 


(U 


<u 


CQ 


CQ 



C 

o 

'•B 
c 
o 
o 

3 

o 

X 

re 
o> 
0. 

>i 
re 
■o 

T3 



C 

a> *^ 
^ o 

0) ._ 

■ 

^ O 

0) Q. 

(O O 

•SO. 

— V 

> 

« o 

—I «rf 

c <o 

O Q> 
> 

<u re 

52 E 
= < 



e E 

lili 



O 



1 



o 

mi: 



11 



GQ CQ CQ CQ CQ 



^ CD LD in 

^ ^ 00 00 00 



CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ 



T T CD ir> 

° ^ 00 CO 00 



m ffi m m m 



cjl 



CO 



CD in 

00 CO 00 



rf\ cf\ cr\ rf\ cTi 



CO CM i 



O TJ- ^ 
T— T— 



0) 

■o 

03 

o 

k 

ro 
E 

LU 



O 
>. 
CD 

C 

o 

I 



0) 

O O 0) 



_ _ o 

=^ ><'^ 

O I- X CQ 

«) > > = 

o o o ^ 

a3 0) <u o 

-3 CQ CQ Q. 



T3 
C 
CD 
u. 

o 
>. 

CD 

o 
tn 

I 



o 

(A 

g 
o 

0) 

<n 
I 

0) 

c 

CD 



CD 
C 

o 

CD 
1 

rj 

c 
o 
o 

CD 

T3 
(D 
O 
u. 

■D 
(U 
« 
'> 

L_ 

0) 



T3 
Q) 
C 

a> 

(0 
(U 

\ 

Q. 

(U 
I 

03 
C/) 

c 
g 

o 
o 

0) 

,> 

ro 

E 
o 



- 2 

0) 

■o 
ro 

o 



(/) 
c 
g 

c 
o 
o 

ro = 
o P 



ro 
E 

LU 



O 



Q. 

o 
en 



_>» 
c 
o 

(0 

c 
g 

c 
o 
o 

_c 

w 
x 

CD 
k. 
(U 

■o 
c 

3 

o 

1 % 

> I— 
Q. .h: 

§1 
O -t 

« o 

(/) V 
ro Q. 

-a O 

0) I— 

ro c/D 

o ro 
ro 5 

^2 
Q 



I- 



o 
c 

c 

0) 

c 

O) 

c 
LU 

(U 

o 
)^ 

o 
o 

CO 



184 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative C 

Parking /Loading Conditions: The Conference Center alternative would result In a parking 
demand of 118 spaces (compared with the proposed parking supply of 200 spaces). Under this 
alternative the Planning Code requirement would be 260 spaces, and therefore there would be a 
code shortfall of 60 spaces. Section 161(f) would allow an exemption from parking requirements 
in the Waterfront Northern Special Use District No. 1. Loading activity associated with this 
alternative would result in a daily demand of 15 delivery /service trips per day, and a demand for 
one loading space during the peak and average hours (two loading spaces are proposed). 

All other impacts would be the same as described for the proposed project because Alternative 
B would have the same harbor features as the proposed project. 

ALTERNATIVE C - PIER 45 EDUCATIONAL CENTER FOCUS 

Similar to the Proposed Project use of Shed A and C, and to Alternative B above, the Pier 45 
Educational Center Focus Alternative physical changes would be to the interior design and use 
of the sheds. The facilities for the Pier 45 Education Center Focus are shown in Figure 21 and 
briefly summarized below. 

PIER 45 - 235,000 square feet of new uses 

• Education Center - 125,000 sq. ft., a multipurpose facility to serve both the seafood 
industry and visitors, designed for public viewing and hands-on education to include 
bilingual fish processing training, seafood inspection, retail marketing, 'in-class 
workshops', seafood cooking and demonstrations. 

• Conference Center - sq. ft. (compared with 50,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Parking - 50, 000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

• Other Retail - 15,000 sq. ft. (compared with 40,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Office Space - sq. ft. (compared with 10,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Outdoor Public Access- 45,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

Travel Demand: The Educational Center alternative, which includes predominantly 
education/visitor use would generate more vehicle-trips than the Proposed Project during the 
weekday PM and weekend midday peak hours. This alternative would generate only 13 vehicle 



185 




186 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

AJternative C 



trips during the weekday AM peak hour, but would generate 189 vehicle trips during the 
weekday PM and weekend midday peak hours. This represents a decrease from the Proposed 
Project of 45 vehicles during the weekday AM peak hour, but an increase of 108 vehicles during 
the weekday PM peak hour and an increase of 91 vehicles during the weekend midday peak 
hour. 

Traffic Operating Conditions: Under the Educational Center alternative, the project contribution 
would be less than 10% at both intersections during the weekday AM and weekend midday peak 
hours, and approximately 15% during the weekday PM peak hour. 

The Educational Center alternatives would operate at LOS conditions similar to the Proposed 
Project. All intersections would operate at LOS B or better. (See Table 1 7, page 1 83) 

Transit/Pedestrian Conditions: 

The Educational Center alternative would result in larger number of transit riders than the 
Proposed Project. During the weekday PM peak hour and the weekend midday peak hour, the 
Educational Center alternative would generate 281 transit trips, which would be distributed 
between the existing transit lines, the two cable cars and the F-Market streetcar line which are 
anticipated to have available capacity for additional passengers. This represents an increase 
over the proposed project of 171 trips during the weekday PM peak hour and 148 trips during 
the weekend midday peak hour. 

As under the Conference Center alternative, the pedestrian conditions LOS streets for the 
weekday and weekend peak hours at the intersection of Jefferson and Taylor would be similar 
as identified for the Proposed Project. All crosswalks would operate at LOS D or better, except 
for the east crosswalk which would continue to operate at the present LOS E. 

Parking Aoadina Conditions: The Educational Center alternative would result in a parking 
demand of 257 spaces, (compared with 117 spaces needed for the proposed project and 
compared with 200 spaces proposed) a deficit of 57 spaces. However, the Planning Code 
requirement of 93 spaces would be met. The Educational Center Alternative would generate a 



187 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative C 



daily demand of 15 delivet7/service trips per day, and a demand for one loading space during 
the peak and average hours (two loading spaces are proposed). 



188 



Vm. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES 

Northwest Information Center 
California Archaeological Inventory 
Departnnent of Anthropology 
Sonoma State University 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 
Attn : Leigh Jordan 

California Department of 

Transportation 
Transportation Planning 
P.O. Box 23660 
Oakland, CA 94623-0660 
Attn: Gary Adams 

California Coastal Commission 

631 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

S.F. Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission 
30 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

California Regional Water Quality 
Control Board (RWQCB) 
San Francisco Bay Region 
1111 Jackson Street, Room 6010 
Oakland, CA 94607 

U.S. Coast Guard, 12th District 
Region IX 

Building 51, Government Island 
Alameda, CA 94501 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Sacramento Field Office (ES) 
2800 Cottage Way 
Sacramento, CA 95825 

Dept. of Army SF District 
Corps of Engineers 
21 1 Main Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1905 
Attn : Rob Lawrence, Dist. Engineer 



State Office of Intergovernmental 
Management (10) 
State Clearinghouse 
1400 - Tenth Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Marc Beyeler 

California Coastal Conservancy 
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 
Oakland, CA 94612 



California State Lands Commission 
1807 13th Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn: Rosanna Norton 

U.S. National Park Service 
Building E Lower Fort Mason 
San Francisco, CA 94123 
Attn: Mike Bell/Nancy Hornor 

California Department of Fish and Game 
Marine Research (Coast Work) 
41 1 Burgess Drive 
Menio Park, CA 94025 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

215 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 



U.S. NOAA 

National Marine Fisheries Services 
P.O. Box 98 
Tiburon, CA 94920 

Calif. Dept. of Boating and Waterways 
1629 "S" Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814-7191 
Attn : William Ivers/Dave Johnson 



189 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



REGIONAL AGENCIES 



Regional Water Quality Control Board 
2101 Webster Street 
Oakland, CA 94612 
Attn: Steven Hill 

Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District 

939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Attn: Joseph Steinberger 



Port of San Francisco 
Chief Harbor Engineer 
Ferry Building 
San Francisco, Ca 941 1 1 
Attn: Cliff Jarrard 



S.F. Department of Parking & Traffic 
Traffic Engineering Division 
25 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco. CA 94102 
Attn: Mark Rand 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Recreation & Park Department 
McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 
Fell and Stanyan Streets 
San Francisco, CA 94117 
Attn: Deborah Lerner 
Attn: Joanne Wilson 

Police Department, Planning Division 

Hall of Justice 

850 Bryant Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: Lt. James Molinari 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Linda Avery, Secretary 

Susan E. Lowenberg, President 

Hector Chincilla, Vice President 

Esther Marks 

Beverly Mills 

Larry Martin 

Kelly J. Hayden, Alternate 
William Lee, Ex Officio 
Phillip H. Adams, Ex Officio 
Jerry Levine, Alternate 



San Francisco Fire Department 
Division of Planning & Research 
260 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Howard L. Slater 



Port of San Francisco Fire Marshall 
Kenneth Cerrighino 
Ferry Building Suite 3100 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

San Francisco Municipal Railway 
MUNI Planning Division 
949 Presidio Avenue, Room 204 
San Francisco, CA 94115 
Attn: Peter Straus 



S. F. Real Estate Department 
25 Van Ness Avenue, 4th floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Anthony Delucchi 
Director of Property 

Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Water Pollution Control 
750 Phelps Street 
San Francisco, CA 94124-1091 
Attn: James Salerno, Manager 



S.F. Department of Public Works 
Division of Streets and Mapping 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 465 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Tim A. Molinare 



190 



GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 



Nunzio Alioto 
Allioto's Restaurant 
#8 Fisherman's Wharf 
San Francisco. CA 94133 

Michael La Rocca 

A l_a Rocca Seafood 

Pier 45, Box 2 

San Francisco, Ca 94133 

Charles Baker 

Telegraph Landing Homeowner's Assoc. 

150 Lombard St 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Roger Beers, Attorney 
1300 Clay Street 9th Floor 
Oakland, CA 94612 

Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 
1950 Addison Street Suite 202 
Berkeley, CA 94704 

Sue Bierman 

1529 Shrader Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 7 

Phil Bentivegna 
"BUTCHIE B" 
60 Rollingwood Drive 
San Rafael, Ca 94901 

John Caito 

Caito Fisheries, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2415 

San Francisco, Ca 94126 

The Cannery 

c/o Christopher Martin 

2801 Leavenworth 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Coalition for San Francisco Neigborhoods 

Mrs. Dorice Murphy 

175 Yukon Street 

San Francisco, CA 94114 



Philip DeAndrade 
Congresswoman Pelosi's Office 
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste. 13470 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Alessandro Baccari 

Fisherman's Wharf Merchants Association 
1873 Market Street, Suite 3 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Julia Viera 

Friends of Islais Creek Channel 

6 Hillview Court 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mickey Gerouldi 

13 Seamast Passage 

Corte Madera, CA 94925 - 1917 

Greenwood Press, Inc. 
P.O. Box 5007 
Westport, Conn 06881-9900 
Attn: Eric LeStrange 

Kurt Jacobson 
H & N Fish Co. 
2390 Jerrold Avenue 
San Francisco, Ca 94124 

Don Harrison 

1550 Bay Street #363 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Heritage 

2007 Franklin Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: David Bahlman, Executive Director 

Sue Hestor Attorney at Law 
870 Market Street, Room 1121 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Anne Cervantes 

HKIT Architects 

400 -2nd Street, Suite 200 

San Francisco, Ca 94107 



191 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Brian McWilliams 
ILWU 

1188 Frankling Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Marina Secchitano 
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific 
450 Harrison Street, Room 103 
San Francisco, Ca 94105-2610 

Jack Scott 

Jack Scott & Associates 

75 1-awsing Street 

San Francisco, Ca 94105 

Kenneth Coren 
265 Miller Avenue 
Mill Valley, CA 94941 

Toby Levine 

1366 Guerrero Street 

San Francisco, Ca 94110 

Nan McGuire 
North Beach Neighbors 
1085 Greenwich Street #2 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Nan Roth 

1436 Kearny Street 

San Francisco, Ca 94133 

Kathy Lohan 

National Maritime Museum Assoc. 

P.O. Box 470310 

San Francisco, CA 94147-0310 

Tom Curtin 

North Point Neighborhood Association 

2925 Larkin Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Perini Corporation 
75 Broadway 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Christopher Scales 



Fritz Arko 

Pier 39 - Limited Partnership 

P.O. Box 193730 

San Francisco, Ca 94119-3730 

Meg Reilley 

Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club 
502 Jefferson Street 
Aquatic Park 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

San Francisco Building & Construction 

Trades Council 

2660 Newhall Street, #116 

San Francisco, CA 94124-2527 

Attn : Stanley Smith 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Richard Morten 



San Francisco Labor Council 
660 Howard Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105-3104 
Attn: Walter Johnson 



San Francisco Planning & Urban Research 

Association 

312 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

San Francisco Tomorrow 
54 Mint Street Room 400 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Tony Kilroy 

John Sanger, Esq. 

1 Embarcadero Center, 1 2th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Tom Creedon 

Scoma's Restaurant, Pier 47 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Paul Sedway 

Sedway Cooke Associates 

300 Montgomery St., 2nd Floor ■ 

San Francisco, CA 94104 



192 



Dale Hess 

S.F. Convention & Visitor's Bureau 
201 Tliird Street, Suite 900 
San Francisco, Ca 94103 

Bob Miller 

S.F. Crab Boat Owners Association 
859 Hacienda Way 
Milbrae, Ca 94030 

Marc Holmes 
Save San Francisco Bay 
1736 Franklin Street 3rd Floor 
Oakland. CA 94612 

Karl Kortum 

San Francisco Maritime Museum 
BIdg 20X Fort Mason 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Michel Berline South End Rowing Club 
555 Fulton Street, #201 
San Francisco, Ca 94102 

D. Carl Hanson 
Southwest Marine, Inc. 
P.O. Box 7644 
San Francisco. Ca 94120 

Pat Flanagan 

Standard Fishieres Corporation 

P.O. Box 26249 

San Francisco, Ca 94126 

Denise Hinckle McCarthy 
Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Ctr. 
660 Lombard Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Bob Tibbits 

386 Chestnut Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Chris Martin 

The Cannery 

2801 Leavenworth Street 

San Francisco. Ca 94133 

Michael Gallette 

Fisherman's Wharfs Port Tenant Assoc. 

Pier 45 - Shed A 

San Francisco, CA 94133 



Kevin Westlye 

The Franciscan Restaurant 

Pier 43-1/2 

San Francisco, Ca 94133 

Joel Ventresca 
202 Grattan 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 7 
MEDIA 

Associated Press 
1390 Market Street, Suite 318 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Bill Shiffman 



San Francisco Bay Guardian 
2700 - Nineteenth Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Attn : Patrick Douglas, City Editor 

San Francisco Business Times 
325 - 5th Street 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
Attn: Tim Turner 

San Francisco Chronicle 
925 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Elliot Diringer 

San Francisco Examiner 
P.O. Box 7260 
San Francisco, CA 94120 
Attn : Gerald Adams 



The Sun Reporter 

1366 Turk Street 

San Francisco. CA 94115 

LIBRARIES 

Document Library 
City Library - Civic Center 
San Francisco. CA 94102 
Attn: Kate Wingerson 



Stanford University Libraries 
Jonsson Library of Government Documents 
State & Local Documents Division 
Stanford. CA 94305 



193 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Government Publications Department 
San Francisco State University 
1630 Holloway Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94132 

Hastings College of the Law - Library 

200 McAllister Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4978 

Institute of Government Studies 
109 Moses Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94720 



LIST OF THOSE TO RECEIVE MAILED 
NOTICES OF AVAILABILITY 

Department of Building Inspection 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Frank Chiu, Superintendent 

Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Vincent Marsh 



Division of General Engineering 
30 Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Raymond Wong 

GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 

AIA San Francisco Chapter 

130 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 



Office of Comm'nity Developm'nt 
25 Van Ness Avenue Suite 700 
San Francisco, Ca 94102 
Attn: Larry Del Carlo 

J. David Heindel, 

Office of Economic Ping. & Dev. 

Rm. 416, War Memorial Building 

401 Van Ness Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Richard Mayer 

Artists Equity Assn. 

27 Fifth Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94118 

Library 

Baker & Mckenzie 
Two Embarcadero Court 
Suite 2400 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Bureau of Energy Conservation 
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 
1155 Market Street, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: John Deakin, Director 

Port Commission 

City of San Francisco 

Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



John Bardis 

Sunset Action Committee 
1501 Lincoln Way, #503 
San Francisco, CA 94122 

Barkley & Lee 

The Mills Building, Suite 691 
220 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Alice Suet Yet Barkley 



194 



Bay Area Council 

200 Pine Street.Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2702 

George Mix, Jr. 
Bay Area Urban League, inc. 
637 Divisadero Street 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 7 

Kermit H. Boston 
BKB Associates 
2315 Divisadero Street 
San Francisco, Ca 94115 

Breitman Co. 

120 Howard Street, Suite 440 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn: Frank Young 

Micliael Dyett 
Blayney-Dyett 
70 Zoe Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Environmental Science Associates, Inc. 
301 Brannan St., Suite 200 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Jim Eschen 

9 Corte Del Bayo 

Larkspur, CA 94939 

Fan & Associates 
Architecture & Planning, Inc. 
580 Market Street, Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn : Robert Fan 

Farella, Braun & Martel 
235 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn : Sandra Lambert 

Stan Moy 

Finger and Moy Architects 
231 Sansome Street, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, Ca 94104-2304 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Food and Fuel Retailers For Economic Equality 
770 L Street, Suite 960 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn: Doug Stevens 
State Coordinator 

Gladstone & Vettel, Attorneys at LawChange 
1 77 Post Street, Penthouse 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn: Steven L Vettel 

Gensler and Associates 
550 Kearny Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Peter Gordon 

Goldfarb & Lipman 
One Montgomery Street 
West Tower, 23rd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Paula Crow 

Esther Woeste 

Golden Gateway Tenants Association 
440 David Court #1813 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Gruen, Gruen & Associates 

564 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Ann Halsted 

1308 Montgomery St., #2 
San Francisco, CA 94131 

James Herman 

Commission 

635 Connecticut Street 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Valerie Hersey 
Munsell Brown 
950 Battery 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Robert Tufts 

Jackson, Tufts, Cole & Black 
650 California Street, 31st. Floor 
San Francisco, Ca 94108 



195 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



1 ne jenerson company 


1 om vvdiKer 


oooc. oacramenio oireei 


iN6Ciioyu Line 


oan rrancisco, y^n lo 


oou OdiiTornid oireei, ^nu rioor 




Odil ridllUlbwU, Od ctH 1 UO 


rxapicii 1/ ivioi-auyiiiii 1/ L^idz 




OOO Valtoirt Qtroot 
ValleJU Oliccl 


INIOI lUlo'Der 1 1 Idl 1 


San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 


142 Minna Street 


Attn: Jan Vargo 


San Francisco, CA 94105 




Attn* 1 1^1 lico MipH/^lc 


U6nnis nerrera 




i\eiiy, V./OX, wooiion c i ml 


jay 0. Wallace 


^^■^A^l" ^I^WAI^\i^ 

opear oireei i ower 


\j uonnei « r la 


1 MarKsi riaza, ouiis louu 


000 Pino Qtroot ^nrto 400 

00^ r iiie Oireei, ouiie huu 


oan rrancisco, ua y4iuo 


oan rrancisco, L/a y**iu*t 


Denise Conley 


Page & Turnbull 


Keyers-Marston Associates, Inc. 


724 Pine Street 


s,/v/ 1 dOMIl^ r^Vt^l lUt? IVIdll 


fian Franri^rn HA Q4104 

Wdl 1 1 1 dl IL^IOO^i \^r^ s7*T 1 


J^fln PranpiQPO QAA 1 1 






p£)tri-Ri irhstnp.MorU'on 
r dii I out 1 id^c ivic;! 1 


L.C11 1 y ivioi ioiJcif.yi 1 


400 SprrjnH Strppt J5iiitp 400 


Hf iviuiuyuiiici y ouc^ci 


^an Pranr'icno ^^A Q4107 
Odil ridiiUloUU, \^r\ jtH lU/ 


Oail riaiiuiouU, y*t 1 u*+ 


Attn* K^ario 7dllpr 

rMiii. ividiie ^eiiei 


Cliff Millor 


reiuii Vo/Urpui dUUi 1 


iy/yj Icon lUl OLIcJcl, ttO 


7^^ RrrvaHvA/aw 
DlVJdUWdy 


Qon Pranoicr»r\ PA QAIHQ 

odii rraiiuiouu, v-z/A yniuy 


Odil 1 idilUloOU, 1 1 1 




Attn' Chri^tnnhpr SpaIpq 


RirhfirrI Millot 




1^1 Potrorrt Awcini lo 


Pillchiirx/ MaHiQon A ^iitrn 

1 IMOUUJI y , iVldVJIOV./l i \A wULI \J 


wdl 1 1 IdllUloUUi \^CL i7*r l\JO 






Odil 1 Idl IUIol,^U, <7H 1 


vjicvji yc IVIIC7IO V.X r^oowUidico 


Attn* K^aril\/n 1 ^lomc 
r^LLi 1. ividi II yii oici 1 lo 


420 Suttpr Strppt 




San Franri<;rn HA Q4inft 

WUI III Cll I^IOV^V./, \ 1 WW 


Pl^4nni^^ Anal\/QiQ A npv/plnnmpnt 
1 Idl II III 1^ r^iidiyoio u L^c;vc?iuiJi 1 Id iL 


Attn' K^artv 7\Ayi^U 
r^LLi 1. ividiiy ^wiuiv 


'^0 Pra nr*icr*r\ Qtrpot 
ou iidiiuiouu oLieei 




^an Pranpicpr* CA 041'^'^ 
Odil nidi iOioi.^U, N-/r\ ^tH 1 OO 




Attn* r^lnria Rnnt 
rMiii. \3iuiid nuui 


OHO OalMUi I ilct Oliccl 




Odil r idi lUloUU, yHlUH 


L/eililld rUiueil 


Attn* l*3/'N^I^ LJ/M'^/^i' 

Mitn. jacoD neruer 


uoDieniz, L«inen, McoaDe ana breyer 




222 Kearny Street, 7th Floor 


National Lawyers Guild 


San Francisco, CA 94108 


558 Capp Street 




San Francisco, CA 94110 


Ramsay/Bass Interest 


Attn: Regina Sneed 


3756 Grant Avenue, Suite 301 




Oakland, CA 94610 




• Attn: Peter Bass 



196 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Lester W. Gee 
Raymond, Boulton & Gee 
843 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

James Reuben 
Reuben, Weintraub, and Cera 
655 Montgomery Street, 16th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

David Rhoades & Associates 
400 Montgomery Street, Suite 604 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Herb Lembcke, FAIA 
Rockefeller & Assoc. Realty LP. 
Four Embarcadero, Suite 2600 
San Francisco, CA 94111-5994 

San Francisco Beautiful 

41 Sutter Street, #709 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Attn : Donna Casey, Exec. Director 

Ming Chang 
S.F. Port Commission 
Rm. 3100 - Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Francis O'Neill 
S.F. Port Commission 
Rm. 3100 - Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Shartsis Freise & Ginsburg 
One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Dave Kremer 



Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 
333 Bush Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Jerry Goldberg 

Solem and Associates 
545 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn: Olive Lewis 



Arthur Bruzzone 

Sorel Investments 

1728 Union Street, Suite 311 

San Francisco, Ca 94123 

Square One Film & Video 

725 Filbert Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Jerry Tone 

Montgomery Capital Corp. 

244 California St. 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Jon Twitchell Associates 
4419 Moraga Ave. 
Oakland, CA 9461 1 

Stephen Weicker 

899 Pine Street, #1610 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Calvin Welch 

Council of Community Housing Organizations 

409 Clayton Street 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

Bethea Wilson & Associates 
Art in Architecture 
2028 Scott, Suite 204 
San Francisco, CA 94115 

FISHERMAN S WHARF-PORT TENANTS 

Michael La Rocca 

La Rocca Seafood, Inc. 

California Shell Fish Co. 

David Peck 
Clean Bay 

Cory Gallery 

Judith Greif 

Embarcadero Triangle Assoc. 
Richard Stein 

Fisherman's Wharf Restaurant 



197 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



FISHERMAN S WHARF-PORT TENANTS 

continued 

Thomas & Eva Fong 
c/o The Wax Museum 

Franciscan Restaurant 

Reynado Henriquez 

Mike Lucas 

North Coast Fisheries, Inc. 

N. Alioto 

Polar Ice 

Al Scoma 
Scoma Restaurant 

Sal Tarantino 
S.P. Tarantino Inc. 

Woodbine Alaska Fish Co. 

Rama Ananda 

Carriage Charter 

Convention Facilities Dept. 

Patrick Davids 
F/V Deborah Ann 

Al Baccari 

FW Merchants Association 
Golden Bay Tour Co. 
F. Alioto 

Francheschi Corporation 

Gelardi's Gift Shop 

Clarence Howie 

Miller & Schneyder 

Robert Snyder 
Pacific Maritime Assn. 



Pompei's Grotto 
Leo Vu 

Sea Win Fish Company 

South End Rowing Club 

Standard Fisheries Corp. 

Ken Burger 
Franciscan Restaurant 

David Chiu 

Castagnola Restaurant 

Crab Boat Owners Assoc. 

Fisherman's Grotto 

Fisherman's Wharf Seafood 

Guardino's FW Souvenir 
& Gift Shop 

J. Williams 
J & K Trading 

Frank Alioto 

M. Alioto Seafoods, Inc. 

Michael Mitchell 

Patio Sandwhich Shops 

Robert Mathes 

Shang-Cheng Fang 
Fang Products, Inc. 

John Squalia 

Tarantino's Inc. 



198 



APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 

Appendix A. Notice of EIR Requirement -Initial Study A.1 

Appendix B. Water and Sediment Data, Oil Spill Notification, and 

Water Quality Effects on Marine Biota A.32 

Appendix C. Air Quality Standards and Data A.43 

Appendix D. Transportation Level of Service Information A.45 

Appendix E. Hazardous Waste Background Report A.48 

Appendix F. EIR Authors and Consultants A.65 



93.574E 



APPENDIX A. 

NOTICE OF EIR REQUIREMENT 



INITIAL STUDY 




^ City and Cou..<y of San Francisco 
I The Planning Department 



1660 Mission street 
San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 



INITIAL STUDY 
HYDE STREET HARBOR BERTHS 
AND PIER 45, SHEDS A AND C, PORTIONS OF B AND D 



TITLE: Hyde Street Harbor Berths, Harbormaster's Facilities, and Proposed New Uses for Pier 45, Sheds 



FILE NO: 93.574E Street Address: East Side of Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45 at the Foot of Taylc Street, 
San Francisco, California 

ASSESSOR'S BLOCK AND LOT: Portions of Block 9900, Lots 2.5,6,7 Date: 5/10/94 



PROJECT BACKGROUND: 

The Port proposes to expand the number of available berths and improve its existing facilities for the 
commercial fishing industry. It would also add an applied research facility with a significant public education 
program. The proposed 86 new berths would be created on the reconstructed and expanded east side of 
the Hyde Street Pier; the Fisheries Institute, along with a variety of other uses to be described in this 
document, is proposed to be located on Pier 45, in all or portions of Sheds A and C. Figure 1 , on the next 
page, is a recent aerial photograph of the project vicinity . 

Pier 45, and the four sheds located on It, suffered considerable damage in the Loma Prieta 
Earthquake of 1989. The work of repairing the damage from that quake, which includes seismically 
reinforcing it and replacing all of the damaged utilities, has meant that all of those systems have had to be 
brought up to current codes. This work has been primarily funded by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA). The replacement and leasing of fish processing facilities in Shed B are anticipated to be 
completed and ready for occupancy in Fall 1 994. It is anticipated that the work would be completed in Shed 
D by Summer 1995. The replacement of earthquake damaged facilities is a separate project from this 
proposal. 

A breakwater, which shelters the entire harbor area from Pier 45 to Hyde Street, was constructed with 
US Government funding in the early '80's. The Hyde Street Pier was originally constructed in 1922 as a 
Ferry Pier. The condition of the Pier has been assessed many times over a 17 year period. These surveys 
document the progressive deterioration of the Pier, particularly in the shoreside area. This proposal would 
replace some of that portion of the pier and add new fill, for the Harbormaster's facility. Pier 45 was the 
principal location for fish processors prior to the 1989 earthquake. 



ADMINISTRATION CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PU\NS AND PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTATION/ZONING 

(415)558-6414 (415)558-6414 (415)558-6264 (415)558-6377 



A and C 



FAX: 558-6409 



FAX: 558-6426 




Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Project Vicinity 



A. -2 



PROJECT OVERVIEW: 



The proposed project has three major components: new uses including a proposed Fisheries Institute 
and ancillary uses and services, which may include some retail, parking, office and public service space, 
proposed(at this time) to be located in Sheds A and C. These buildings are on the eastern side of Pier 45 
at the foot of Taylor Street; establishment of a new 86-berth Hyde Street Harbor, located to the west of Pier 
45, on the east side of the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park (National Maritime Park). This Is 
a new National Park and is not a part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA); and harbor 
service facilities located partially on new fill that would include a new Harbormaster's building, fueling station, 
work dock, and a vessel pump-out station. The Harbor would be a new marina designed for the fishing 
industry. On the landside of the Harbor, and adjacent to the new Harbormaster's building, there would be 
provided a hoist and small ship repair working area that could be a facility shared with the Maritime Park. 
The Fisheries Center and the other facilities, such as the Undenwater World holding tanks, could provide 
research, education, and training facilities for fishermen and women, processors, distributors, and the public. 

EXISTING USES ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE: 

A major portion of the Hyde Street Pier is leased by the Port to the National Park Service (NPS) for 
the National Maritime Park. Seven historic ships that belong to the Park Service are moored off of both sides 
of the Hyde Street Pier. On the eastern, landward side, not part of the NPS lease, severe damage was done 
by the Loma Prieta earthquake. The area most severely damaged by the earthquake has been closed to 
the public since 1989. /I/ Restoration and additional fill of part of that area is included in this proposal. 

While there are strictly only 99 existing berths, "double stacking" of boats allows about 120 berths 
for fishing boats at Fisherman's Wharf; these are located in both the Inner and Outer Lagoons. All berths 
are leased and used year-round. About 50 additional fishing vessels regularly use the harbor, and raft up 
to Pier 45, Wharf J7 nearby, or moor in the harbor wherever space is available. Throughout the year there 
are also varying numbers of transient vessels using the harbor. The herring season, which runs from 
November through March, is the busiest time of year for both fishermen and fish handlers at Fisherman's 
Wharf. There are about 500 boats in the San Francisco Bay herring fleet and Fisherman's Wharf is the most 
active harbor during the herring season./2/ Figure 2 shows the area as it is today with the footprint of 
the existing structures including the finger piers. 

Prior to the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1 989, the primary use of the adjacent Pier 45 was to provide 
space for fish handlers and parking. There are four sheds on the Pier which total approximately 279,000 
square feet. Sheds B and D (about 130,000 square feet) located on the west side of the Pier were used for 
fish handling and circulation (about 112,000 square feet), and storage of gear (about 18,000 square feet). 
Sheds A and C (149,000 square feet) located on the east side were partially vacant and had facilities which 
included support space for the Red and White fleet and the submarine Pompanito which was moored along 
the eastern edge of the Pier, office space for area merchants, parking, and a space where special public 
events, such as Festa Italiana, were held. The space between the sheds, the "valley", was used for truck 
access for tenants, and public and tour bus parking. 73/ Seismic repair and upgrade of Pier 45 is currently 
underway. It is anticipated by the Port that all of the above uses will retum to Sheds B and D when the 
earthquake work is completed. In fact, there are some fish processors operating out of Pier 45 at this time. 

Fish Alley and Wharf J7, which are located north of Jefferson Street, on the waterside and between 
Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Pier, would continue to house their present uses. At this time, Fish Alley 
contains fish landing and handling facilities, storage areas for various types of gear, and two fuel storage 
tanks. Only one of the tanks is in service. It is the present source for the existing fuel dock. There are also 
retail and art gallery uses, limited parking, and restaurants. 



/f. 3 




_ •) 

Figure 2: Existing Conditions 

4.4 



I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 



The following description of the components of the proposed Project is subject to revision as the plans 
are finalized. A more detailed and precise description of the various project elements, and alternatives to 
them, will be provided in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). See Figures 3 for proposed project drawing. 

Pier 45 • Sheds A and C. Portions of B and D 

The purposes of the Center, as defined at this time, would be to provide varying amounts of space 
for the following for the following uses: applied research; a small conference center; education and 
training for members of the fishing industry including the processors and distributors; backup facilities 
for Underwater World; office; retail; parking. The Fisheries Center would also serve to educate the 
public about the fishing industry, allowing observation of a working fish harbor and pier, and would 
provide education and interpretation of the surrounding Bay and ocean environment. There are three 
design alternatives being examined by consultants to the Pott for the proposed fisheries and 
environmental center that is proposed on Pier 45 These will be examined in the EIR. 

o The mixeJ use facility, containing the elements listed above, could occupy all, or portions of Sheds 
A and C. These buildings, with mezzanines, have available approximately 185,000 square feet. The 
size of individual operations would range from an estimated 5,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. 
For example, in one alternative being examined by the consultants, there would be: a Visitor Center 
of 40,000 square feet; an adjunct tank/research facility to Undenwater World Aquarium of 30,000 
square feet; a Conference Center of 18,000 square feet; office of 15,000 square feet; retail of 22,000 
square feet; and parking occupying 50,000 square feet. At this time, for some of the uses described 
atDove, an additional 30,000 square feet divided between Sheds B and D is also being discussed. 

Hyde Street Harbor Berthing System (see Figure 4. page 8): 

Reconstruction of the east side of the Hyde Street Pier would include the replacement of the rock fill and 
timber pier structure (about 0.16 acre) with 0.07 acre of solid fill and 0.63 acre of concrete pile supported 
pier. There would be 0.54 acre of net new Bay fill as a result of this reconstruction. The floating docks are 
not included in these figures. Figures 4 shows the proposed Harbor facilities described below. 

The new berthing system would consist of 86 floating berths supported by a concrete guide 
pile berthing system, with 120 new 24 inch rectangular concrete piles. The floating docks are 
considered bay fill by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 
regulations. The surface area covered by the walkways to the berths would be approximately 
27,000 square feet, which includes the foam pontoons. 

o Berths would be provided by floats with encased foam pontoons that would ride slightly below 
the surface of the water. 

o Of the 86 berths, ten could accomodate oversized vessels in "stern-to" berths (berths without 
separating floats to which vessels tie at their sterns) and an additional 20 oversized vessels 
could be accomodated along 1320 linear feet of dock. 

o A single security gate at the brow (shore end of the pier) would limit access to berth holders 
and harbor personnel. 

o There would not be any berthing on the west side of the float closest to the Hyde Street Pier 
and Aquatic Park. The westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible 'skirt" which would 
eliminate gaps between floats and provide a measure of water quality protection. 

AS 




Figure 3: Proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 

A.6 \ 

I 



The berthing system would include lighting, electrical power, water and fire protection 
systems, deck boxes and carts for each berth. There would be a 20 gallons per minute 
sewage pumpout unit for use by the boats. This new equipment would be located on the pier 
in the vicinity of the fuel dock and work hoist. 

o First priority for use of the berths would be given to commercial fishing vessels in accordance with 
Port of San Francisco Tariff No. 3-C, Section 8 - Fishing Industry. 

Harbor Services Proposed for the Hvde Street Pier Expansion (see Figure 5 page 10): 

o A work dock would be developed to provide space and a hoist for transferring gear and 
equipment, and a place to drop off gear from vessels. It would occupy the new fill that would 
be located on the northerly portion of the pier beyond the existirtg fuel dock. 

o The existing fuel station building of 420 square feet, now located on a pile supported pier, would 
be replaced with a one-story harbor services/fuel dock building of 1500 square feet located on partial 
new fill. Included in this facility would be: 

1/100 square foot fuel dock and staff restroom 

21 900 square foot convenience store 

3/ harbor maintenance shop 

4/ trash storage compound consisting of a covered and enclosed area of 100 square feet on 
the north side of the building which would contain two dumpsters for use by fishermen. 

A new fuel station would include a fuel dock with three dispensers equipped with automatic shut off 
features; a leak detection system; remote operated shut off switch and pressure sensitive automatic 
shut-off valves. 

o The new fuel station would have impermeable surfaces with all runoff collected in gutters located 
along the pier edge. Runoff would be transported in pipelines to a pretreatment facility on site before 
flowing into the City sewage system. The fuel dock area would be provided with lightingand spill 
containment equipment. 

A new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline from the seawall to the fuel dock would be installed. 

o Oily waste disposal facilities would be provided in a clearly marked location in the working area. 

A vessel sewage pump-out station would be installed with a 20 gpm pump-out capability directly 
connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. 

o In areas to be excavated for utility lines, contaminated soil would be treated by bioremediation on a 
nearby site or, depending on the level of contamination, removed from the site and disposed of at 
an approved location.. 



A.7 



Harbor Master Building: 



The proposed project would also include a two-story 4100 square foot Harbormaster's Building 
described below. It would be located on the new fill at the end of the Hyde Street Pier on the 
eastside: 

1/ An office for the Harbormaster, with space for California State Department of Fish and 
Game and U.S. Coast Guard or other governmental agencies. 

21 Showers, toilets, and laundry for use of the fishermen. 

3/ Public toilets 

4/ Second floor observation deck accessible to public. 

Parking for 52 vehicles is proposed over existing land and/or over new fill or deck. 42 spaces would 
be over existing land for short-term use by fisherman, 10 would be over new fill or deck at the Harbor 
Services and Harbormaster's buildings for staff and visitors. 

All storm runoff and sanitary sewer sewage would be captured and disposed of through the City 
sewer system. 

o Public access would be provided on the new pier (excluding the fuel dock area proposed to be 
located behind the Harbor Services Building). The Harbormaster's Building would have a second level 
viewing deck available for the public. The new berths would only be accessible to berth users. 

Construction Activities: 

There would be a total of approximately 0.54 acres of net new land fill that would be placed and compacted 
prior to the beginning of construction activities. The fill that would be required for the landside construction 
activities would be staged from a lease area on the east side of the entrance to the Hyde Street Pier. 
Placement of this fill, as well as the berthing system water coverage, would require a permit from the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 

Dredging and pile driving would be necessary to create the berths. This requires approval of the United 
States Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Board. It is estimated at this time that 
approximately 20,000 cubic yards would be dredged from the harbor. 

II OVERVIEW OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE PROJECT: 

This proposal would be located at Fisherman's Wharf, an area bounded generally by Pier 35 on the 
east; Aquatic Park on the west; The Pier Head Line in San Francisco Bay on the north; and North Point, 
Bay and Francisco Streets on the south. There are approximately 374 acres of land and water included in 
this general area along the northern waterfront of San Francico; 175 acres are on land, which includes the 
piers. 

The Project Area for the proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 Improvements to Sheds A and 
C, is located on property controlled by the Port Commission. It is adjacent to property leased from the Port 
by the the the National Park Service and other land controlled by the City and County of San Francisco. 
Other agencies, including the California State Lands Commission, the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the United States Army Corps of Engineers 
(COE), the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), have planning authority or regulatory powers in 



portions of the Project Area. A complete analysis of agencies that may have jurisdictional or regulatory 
concerns with the proposed project will be included in the EIR. 

Principal existing land uses on the Jefferson Street properties immediately adjacent to or within the 
Project Area are retail, restaurant and entertainment. Within the Project Area as defined in Figure 2, 
uses include fishing and maritime/industrial, office, recreation and open space, public/quasi-public and 
parking. 

In the past, Fisherman's Wharf was characterized by a combination of maritime and fishing-related 
activities and other distribution, transportation, and Industrial uses. Although these uses have not been 
entirely displaced in the Wharf area, the mix of development since the mid-1960s has become more tourist 
serving, with the exception of the proposed project location and its immediate vicinity. 

In the area under City Planning Commission jurisdiction which surrounds the Project site, hotels, 
specialty retail/restaurant complexes, food service, and entertainment establishments have become principal 
land uses. Commercial developments include seven hotels. North Point Shopping Center, Cost Plus Imports 
retail store, and Ghirardelli Square, Cannery and Anchorage specialty retail/restaurant complexes. 
Residential and public infrastructure uses include the 514-unit North Point Apartments, the 229-unit North 
Beach Place public housing project, the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) Kirkland Bus Yard, and 
the North Point Water Pollution Control Plant /5/ 

At what is known as Fisherman's Wharf, commercial maritime and fishing activities remain principal 
uses in areas under Port jurisdiction. These areas include piers, shoreline, waterfront extending bayward 
to the U.S. Pier Head Line, the underground seawall along Embarcadero Roadway, and seawall lots 
adjoining the Embarcadero. 

Within one mile of the proposed additional fishing fleet berths. Pier 39 maintains 350 berths for 
recreational boats. It was developed in the late 70's. There are two pump out stations, and a boat that 
services other boats within the harbor; this number of pump out facilities allows 10 liveaboards to berth 
there. /6/ 

Tourist-serving retail and restaurant uses under Port jurisdiction are concentrated in three areas: the 
Pier 39 specialty retail/restaurant complex, the north end of Taylor Street, and along the north side of 
Jefferson Street west of Mason Street, adjacent to the proposed project. Other prominent developments on 
nearby Port properties include the five-level Pier 39 parking garage, surface parking on the Triangle and on 
Piers 43 and 43-1/2, tourist-serving ferry facilities along the waterfront from Pier 41 to Pier 45, and fish 
handling/maritime facilities along Fish Alley and within Pier 45. Fish Alley extends along Seawall Lots 302 
and 303 between Jones and Hyde Street. 

Principal uses adjacent to the proposal on the west side in areas under City and Maritime National 
Park Service jurisdiction include Aquatic Park, the Municipal Pier, the San Francisco Senior Center and the 
Maritime Museum. The Dolphin Club and the South End Rowing Club, occupy land zoned P (Public Use), 
and Aquatic Park, are under City jurisdiction. The adjacent Pier 43, on the east side of the proposed new 
improvements to Pier 45, is the Red and White Fleet Tourist Boat berth. 



III. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

The Fishermen's Wharf Seafood Center and Hyde Street Harbor is examined in this Initial Study to 
identify potential effects on the environment. The Initial Study identifies some project-specific impacts that 
are potentially significant. In addition, there are some anticipated possible cumulative impacts. Thus, an EIR 



will be required. The purpose of the EIR will be to analyze areas of potential impact in greater detail and 
recommend appropriate mitigation measures. The following summary first lists areas of impact that would 
be analyzed in an EIR followed by those topics to be discussed in the attached checklist, and thus not 
necessary to include in the EIR: 



A. Effects Found To Be Potentially Significant: 

o Transportation issues related to the ability of existing infrastructure to serve project-generated 
traffic, including congestion and traffic safety. 

o Impact on public utilities and services , primarily the sewer systern, and the ability of existing 
local services and utility providers to meet the needs of the proposed project. 

o Air quality issues related to objectionable odors and may include traffic and boat emissions. 

Bioloqv issues , including whether the project may affect sensitive habitats that support rare 
or endangered species or species of special concern. 

o Water quality and hydrology issues , including but not limited to possible sources of water 
pollution, how the project may affect the use of the water for recreational activities, and 
possible impacts of the proposal on surface as well as deeper waters of the Bay, drainage, 
and ground water. 

Public safety , including the potential for the proposed project to expose the public to 
hazardous materials, and the adequacy of emergency response services. 

o Cumulative impacts of the proposed project combined with other projects planned for the area, 
primarily transportation issues. 

B. Effects Found Not To Be Significant: 

The following areas have been determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project, 
or any effects would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through measures proposed by the project 
sponsor. These areas of study are discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Evaluation Checklist and 
Discussion, Section IV, and require no further analysis in the EIR: 

Land Use. Item 1(a.b) : As a minimal expansion on the new fill area and modification of space 
within existing buildings (Sheds A and C), the project could not disrupt or divide the physical 
arrangement of an established community. Proposed uses are expansions of either existing 
water-oriented uses, or similar uses that exist close by, and would not change the character 
of the area. The portions of the project that would require bay fill will be extensively 
discussed in the EIR to the extent that they may affect biology, water quality, and relevant 
topics other than land use. Existing land uses on the Project site and in the surrounding area 
will be described in the EIR to help orient the reader. 

Visual Quality. Item 2(a.b.c): There will be little or no change in the visual effect of the 
proposal in that any additional structures would be small scale (less than 40 feet in height). 

View access to both the Bay and the industrial-fishing activities at Pier 45 would be improved. There 
would be a new observation deck on the second level of the harbormaster's building, and there would 
be more linear feet of pedestrian access around the perimeter of the new fill than presently exists. 



A. 12 



Population. Item 3(a.b.c) : The project would not generate a substantial amount of new 
employment or create a substantial demand for new housing. The project would not displace 
any existing residences or businesses. The new berths would accommodate ships that were 
temporarily anchored in the harbor vicinity but without an assigned berth. Some of the ships 
may have temporary live-aboard facilities. Fishing boats permanently berthed in the existing 
harbor at Fisherman's Wharf would be owned and crewed by persons who already have 
housing since the existing facilities do not include the pump out station required for a harbor 
to legally accommodate liveaboards. 

Noise. Item 5(a.b.c): A noise report on a previous project has been prepared which concluded that 
the noise from the increase in activities from that proposal could barely be perceived. 

Air Quality/Climate. Item 6(a.b.d) : The project would not alter wind, moisture or temperature, 
add shadows substantially affecting public areas, or otherwise hdve the capability to change 
the climate in the community or region. 

Utilities/Public Services. Item 7(c) : The project would not substantially increase demand for 
schools, recreation, or other similar public facilities. 

Biology. Item 8(c): This is a proposed Bay project; no trees are on the site. 

Geology/Topography. Item 9(a.b) : New fill for the Harbormaster's facilities and proposed new 
structures would be engineered to withstand seismic events. 

Energy/Natural Resources. Item 11 (a. b) : The utilities that would be necessary to supply to the boats 
when they were berthed would be minimal. Energy, water and fuel use would be minimal due to the 
relatively small size of the project. 

Cultural. Item 13(a.b.c) : There would be no disruption of an archaeological site or property of historic 
significance. The proposed project could be viewed as enhancing the available recreational and 
educational resources and opportunities available to the public and would not conflict with established 
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of the area. 



A■^3 



IV. 



ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST 



A. 



COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS 



N/A 



Discussed 



1. 



Discuss any variances, special authorizations, changes 
proposed to the City Planning Code or Zoning Map, 
if applicable. 

Discuss any conflicts with any other adopted 
environmental plans & goals of the City or Region, 
if applicable. 



X 



X 



The City Planning Code, which incorporates by reference the City's Zoning Maps, governs permitted uses, 
densities, and the configuration of buildings within San Francisco. Permits to construct new buildings (or to 
alter or demolish existing ones) may not be issued unless either the proposed project conforms to the Code, 
or an exception is granted pursuant to provisions of the Code. On Port property, building permits are issued 
by the Port. Other entitlements, such as conditional use authorizations when necessary, are the province 
of the City Planning Department. 

Located in the Fisherman's Wharf area, the site is bounded by San Francisco Bay to the north, the San 
Francisco Maritime Park to the west, Jefferson Street to the south, and Taylor Street to the east. It is in a 
C-2 (Community Business) use district, and a 40-X height and bulk district, and in the Northern Waterfront 
Special Use District No. 1 , in which non-maritime uses require Conditional Use Authorization and maritime- 
related uses are permitted. The site contains uses associated with the fishing industry, and restaurants and 
shops serving the tourist industry and San Francisco residents. The proposed project would require a 
conditional use authorization if non-maritime related uses are contained within the proposal. There are 
minimal conflicts with the existing zoning or land use designation for the property. Further discussion in the 
EIR will be provided for this topic. 

Compatibility with existing plans is an issue that will be discussed in the EIR. There are several Plans that 
have policies that may conflict regarding treatment of waterfront lands and the Bay waters, and there are 
also multi-jurisdictional considerations. The site is in an area under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the State Lands Commission, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the City 
Planning Commission, and the San Franciso Port Commission, each of which would need to approve those 
aspects of the proposal within their specific jurisdiction. In addition, Proposition H, a measure passed by the 
voters in 1990 mandating that a plan for the waterfront be developed and that uses be restricted to water 
oriented uses, applies to the site. 

The Northeastern Waterfront Plan, an Element of the San Francisco Master Plan, addresses land use at the 
project site. Objective 11 is to "maintain and enhance the maritime character of the Fishermans's Wharf area 
and enhance the area as a center for the commercial fishing industry.' Policy 1 is to "encourage the 
retention and expansion of the commercial fishing and fish handling industry and businesses which provide 
services to the fishing fleet through construction of a new breakwater in the general area of the Hyde Street 
pier." The Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the State Lands Commission, the directives 
of Proposition H passed by the voters of San Francisco, and the Port Commission, prohibit or discourage 
the use of Pier 45 for anything other than maritime or maritime related uses. The EIR will provide further 
discussion of jurisdictional and other agency related issues. 



• Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 14 



B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Yes No Discussed 

1. Land Use - Could the project: 

a. * Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 

established community? X X 

b. Have any substantial impact upon the existing 

character of the vicinity? X X 



A breakwater was constructed In 1 985 by the COE to provide a sheltered harbor area for the fishing fleet. 
It is located within the U.S. Pier Head Line in the water area between the Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45; it 
was assumed that more berths would be added. The project under evaluation would add those additional 
berths. The project would expand and continue uses that have existed in the area for decades; thus it 
would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The new Harbormaster's 
Building and facilities would be of the same scale as the nearby buildings and designed to be visually 
compatible with those structures. No additional existing land area (on the landward side) would be required. 
The amount of bay fill placed between the shoreline and the Hyde Street Pier for the Harbormaster's 
facilities, a total of 0.54 acres or 23,522 square feet of net new fill would not divide an existing community. 

The total volume of fish that would arrive and could be handled in Wharf facilities would be greater than at 
present. There would be the possibility of more ships (about 86) bringing in to the harbor to be processed 
fish that are "landed" or caught. Fish "handled" at the harbor include, in addition to the fish "landed" and 
arriving by boat, those which are brought to the harbor by trucks. Large quantities of fish now change hands 
between fish brokers and distributors out of trucks in the early morning hours on Jefferson Street, or existing 
packing/processing houses nearby, such as those located in Fish Alley or on Pier 45. Large shipments may 
arrive by boat or truck from other harbors to be broken down into smaller packages in Fisherman's Wharf 
facilities. A fish is landed only once; it may be handled many times. The potential has always existed for 
large additional quantities of fish to be handled at the Wharf that are not caught there. Thus, present fishing 
uses would not change substantially but would intensify. 

The volumes of fish landed at the Port of San Francisco are monitored and reported by the Department of 
Fish and Game. The current situation will be discussed in the EIR. The volumes of fish handled 
"unofficially" on Jefferson Street out of trucks are not currently monitored. When the current work that is 
underway on Pier 45 (FEMA Earthquake Repair) is completed, the improvements to the valley area between 
the sheds on Pier 45 would allow the Port to move into this area the trucks that are now conducting the 
trading on Jefferson Street. 

There are some "new" uses proposed for Sheds A and C. In actuality, the uses, such as retail and office 
would be new to the site but not the area. The setting in the EIR will include a discussion of this 
for purposes of orienting the reader. 

2. Visual Qualitv - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X X 

b. Substantially degrade or obstruct any scenic view or vista 

now observed from public areas? X X 

c. Generate obtrusive light or glare substantially impacting 

■ other properties? X X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



4. 15 



The site for the proposed new berths is open water at present. There are a number of industrial and 
maritime structures on the landside. The buildings on Fish Alley, while receiving some renovation, would 
remain substantially the same. New buildings would replace the smaller buildings on the Port's portion of 
the Hyde Street Pier (there would be no change to the GGNRA Maritime Park facility). The tallest building, 
the proposed new Harbormaster's building, would be two stories and about 30 feet tall. It would be taller 
than the existing structures on the GGNRA portion of the Hyde Street Pier; those structures range from ** 
feet to **. The new building would be visible from vantage points to the south on Russian Hill and from the 
Bay. The proposed Harbor Services Building would be one story tall and would be less visible from outside 
of the project area. The two proposed buildings have been sited to preserve the views of the Bay and the 
Historic Ships from Hyde Street. No scenic views or vistas now observed from public areas would be 
substantially degraded by these proposed buildings. 

The proposed berthing system, and boats using these berths, would be visible from vantage points on the 
waterfront from Aquatic Park to Pier 45. Views of the Bay would continue to be available between the boats. 
The addition of boats to currently available Bay views would not detract from these maritime views. The 
project would not degrade the character of this space or result in a significant negative visual impact on the 
area. It will not be required to discuss the topic of visual quality further in the EIR. 

The site contains a number of industrial and maritime structures. New public access and viewing areas would 
be incorporated into the new uses on Pier 45 in Sheds A and C as well as in the Harbormaster's building 
on the Hyde Street Pier. The four sheds on Pier 45 would remain. They received some renovation with the 
earthquake upgrading, but their size and shape would remain substantially the same. It will not be necessary 
to discus the topic of visual quality further in the EIR. 

3. Population - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Induce substantial growth or concentration of population? X X 

b. * Displace a large number of people (involving either housing 

or employment)? X X 

c. Create a substantial demand for additional housing in 

San Francisco, or substantially reduce the housing supply? X X 

The existing daily population near the project site includes fishing boat owners and crews, employees, 
customers, and other visitors (which includes tourists) to the existing harbor, boats, public parks and 
recreation areas, parking, restaurants, galleries, offices, and other retail spaces. Following project 
construction, the daily population of the site would include the same mix with the addition of more users and 
visitors to the new uses on Pier 45 and to the harbor facilities and new berths that are proposed. Overall, 
the proposed project might increase the daily population on the site. Any potential increase in visitor 
population might be noticeable to immediately adjacent neighbors, but would not substantially increase the 
existing area-wide residential population. 

The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or commercial enterprises and therefore would 
not displace residents or employees. There may be a small number of new long-term jobs created as a 
result of the project operation, as well as some number of short-term construction-related jobs. These 
prospective employees would likely consist of Bay Area residents from various communities and some 
persons relocating to the area. The relatively small numbetof future employees seeking housing would likely 
locate in a dispersed area, and could be accommodated without substantially affecting the stock of available 
housing in Bay Area communities. The ships utilizing the new berths would be expected to have crews that 
either already live in the area or live elsewhere and would seek temporary accomodations while their boat 



Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



/.16 



is in this harbor. The EIR will not provide further discussion of population, housing or employment issues 
related to the proposed project. 



4. Transportation/Circulation - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Cause an increase in traffic which Is substantial in relation 

to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? X X 

b. Interfere with existing transportation systems, causing substantial 

alterations to ci^rculation patterns or major traffic hazards? X X 

c. Cause a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be 

accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity? , X X 

d. Cause a substantial increase in parking demand which cannot be 

accommodated by existing parking facilities? X X 



The EIR will examine existing traffic levels and the capacity of existing roadways in relation to the expected 
increase in traffic levels that would be generated by the proposed project. Particular attention will be paid 
to the potential increase in truck traffic related to the fish handling business which could be an outcome of 
the project. 

The EIR will specifically analyze existing and projected Levels of Service (LOS) for designated area 
intersections. If these analyses show that there is the potential for a significant decrease in the service level 
of intersections, mitigation measures designed to alleviate traffic congestion will be developed and discussed. 
Pedestrian and traffic safety issues will also be addressed in the EIR. 

Parking facility demand and supply will be analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will detail existing facilities, 
estimate expected demand as a result of the proposed project and determine whether the proposed plans 
provide sufficient parking. 

While the potential increase in traffic and parking demand would not be expected to be significant within the 
urban context of the site's vicinity, transportation issues are of interest and concern to residential and 
commercial property owners, tenants, and visitors throughout San Francisco. For this reason, and because 
existing parking and traffic conditions in the vicinity are already congested, the EIR will discuss potential 
effects of the project related to automobile traffic, transit, and parking. Potential traffic impacts during 
construction will also be discussed in the EIR. 



5. Noise - Could the project: ^, ... p^. 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas? X X 

b. Violate Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, if applicable? X X 

c. Be substantially impacted by existing noise levels? X X 



A noise study done for an earlier proposal at Pier 45 quantified the existing noise levels and assessed the 
potential for increased noise levels as a result of a very similar proposed project. That report is summarized 
here. HI The closest sensitive receptors include the recreational users of Aquatic Park and the Dolphin 
Swim Club and the South End Swimming & Rowing Club, the GGNRA Hyde Street Historic Park visitors, 
severaJ hotels located between one and two blocks from the project, and residences two blocks and more 
from the site. Noise measurements were taken at 25 locations in the project area and in nearby residential 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 17 



areas. Both daytime and early morning (3:30 to 6:30a.m.) measurements were taken. Daytime readings 
ranged between 51 and 77dBA, with peaks associated with such events as buses, cable cars or fire engines 
passing reaching up to 84 dBA. Early morning readings ranged between 42 and 73 dBA, with peaks up to 
84 dBA. The results show that the project is in an area with relatively high noise levels resulting from high 
volumes of traffic on nearby streets. 

Peak noise generation at the project site occurs now and would occur in the future with the project during 
the herring season (December to early April), when pumps operate at Pier 45 and higher levels of fishing 
industry related traffic occur. The Port has received complaints about pump noise during this time of year. 
An electric pump operating when the noise measurements were taken registered about 70dBA at a distance 
of 50 feet. Average vessel starting noise is about 75dBA. Two vessels starting simultaneously produce a 
total of about 78dBA. The project would result in new noise generation frpm additional machinery associated 
with the fishing industry, from additional vessel motors, and from new traffic generated by the project. 

The noise level increases by 3dBA for every doubling of the noise source in a similar location and is reduced 
by 6dBA for every doubling of distance from the source. An increase of 3dBA is "just noticeable" to humans. 
Against the background noise of trucks and buses currently experienced during the early morning hours in 
places between Pier 45 and the residential areas, with twice the present number of pumps in place and 
electrified, three quarters of them running simultaneously and two fishing vessels starting up, the noise level 
of the combined activity would barely be perceived at Jefferson and Taylor Streets. The noise level at 4:00 
a.m. would be increased by about 3dBA, which is "just noticeable" to humans, over the current background. 
By 5:00 a.m., the background noise level would drown out any noise from the project. The recreational users 
of the nearby Parks and Clubs, considered to be sensitive receptors to noise, are typically not in the area 
until after 5:00 a.m.. Therefore, noise impacts are not considered significant and this topic will not be further 
discussed in the EIR. 

Construction activities would generate noise. The greatest noise impact would occur during a period of about 
one month, when piles would be driven for the new berths about 300 feet to 600 feet north of Jefferson 
Street. The noise level from pile driving is about 105dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At nearby points in direct 
line (without intervening structures in the path of sound waves), such as points within the project site and 
Aquatic park, noise levels during this period would range from 83 to 89 dBA at the nearest section of 
Jefferson Street. This would be noticeable above the noise levels currently observed. In the flat areas to 
the south of the project site, this noise would be somewhat attenuated by distance and the intervening 
buildings. From residences on Russian Hill, without intervening structures, pile driving would perceptibly 
increase the present background noise levels to between 65 and 68 dBA, up to 3 dBA above the existing 
background noise levels. Because pile driving produces an intermittent noise, it would be m ore than "just 
noticeable" to residents even though average ambient noise levels would increase by only about 3dBA. 
However, construction noise is a short term impact, and therefore not considered to be a significant 
environmental impact except for unusually long construction periods (e.g. several years). Construction noise 
is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinanace (Article 29 of the City Police Code). Section 2908 of 
the Ordinanace prohibits construction work at night, from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., if noise would exceed the 
ambient noise level by five dBA at the project property line, unless a special permit is authorized by the 
Director of Public Works. There will not be a further discussion of this topic in the EIR. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



6. Air Quality/Climate - Could the project: 



a. * Violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially 

to an existing or projected air quality violation? 

b. * Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 

c. Permeate its vicinity with objectionable odors? 

d. Alter wind, moisture or temperature (including sun shading effects) 
so as to substantially affect public areas, or change the climate 
either in the community or region? 



Yes No Discussed 



Demolition and construction activity would temporarily raise dust levels in the area, but not to a level that 
would have significant impacts upon air quality, particularly because disturbed soils in the project area would 
be wet either from the Bay or from shallow ground water levels. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established thresholds for projects requiring 
its review for potential air quality impacts. These thresholds are based on the minimum size projects (must 
generate more than 2000 vehicles per day) which the District considers capable of producing air quality 
problems; it does not appear that the project would exceed this minimum standard. If the transportation 
analysis prepared for the EIR indicates that it does, this topic would be included in the EIR. 

The Port has received complaints in the past regarding odors from fish processing activities on Pier 45 as 
well as those that occur around the boats in the harbor. There will be further discussion of this topic in the 
EIR. 



The proposed project would not substantially alter wind, moisture, or temperature conditions in the area. The 
proposed new structures would not be large enough to substantially alter wind patterns or cause a wind 
tunnel effect. Given the scale and locations of proposed buildings, they would not cast substantial shadows 
on public areas or cause any change of ambient temperature in a public place. The project does not include 
buildings or paved areas in sufficient volumes to alter the climate in the community or region. The EIR will 
not contain any further discussion of the proposed project in relation to ambient temperature or weather 
conditions on the site. 



The boats use diesel fuel. Diesel-powered equipment would emit, in decreasing order by weight, nitrogen 
oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulates. These emissions would increase 
local concentrations intermittently. 



7. Utilities/Public Services - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 



a. * Breach published national, state or local standards relating to 

solid waste or litter control? 

b. * Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development? 

c. Substantially increase demand for schools, recreation or other 
public facilities? 

d. Require major expansion of power, water, or communications 
facilities? 



The EIR will discuss solid waste facilities affected by the proposed project and quantify the expected effect 
of the proposed project on these facilities. 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. A • 1 9 



Following the damage done to Pier 45 and its sheds in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, extensive work 
was required on all existing utilities and other systems. A description and analysis of that work and the 
completion and occupancy status will be discussed in the EIR. 

There will also be a replacement of the sanitary sewer systems on the Hyde Street Pier. Stormwater runoff 
from the Hyde Street Pier currently drains directly into the Bay. With the project, the surface area at the 
Hyde Street Pier would increase. This runoff from the roof of the proposed buildings and pier deck at Hyde 
Street would be collected and treated before discharge into the Bay. A description of the new system and 
the water quality ramifications of these changes will be included in the EIR. 

The proposed project could not have a significant effect on school facilities or generate a substantial number 
of new students to any one school facility. This determination is based on the relatively small number of new 
jobs that are expected to be generated by this project. The EIR will not contain any further discussion of 
impacts to school facilities. Similarly, usership of existing park and recreation facilities in the project vicinity 
would not be substantially affected by the limited and dispersed population increase associated with project- 
related employment. The EIR will not contain further discussion of effects on recreation and similar public 
facilities. 

There are no known proposed or required new utility substations or new water supplies that would be 
required to serve the proposed project. There would be an increased demand for and use of public services 
and utilities on the site, and an increase in water and energy consumption, but not in excess of amounts 
expected and provided for in this area. There will be no further discussion in the EIR. 

8. Bioloqv - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant, 

or the habitat of the species? X X 

b. * Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants, or 

interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or 

migratory fish or wildlife species? X 

c. Require removal of substantial numbers of mature, scenic trees? X 

The EIR will contain discussion and analysis of the potential for the proposed project to affect local fish or 
wildlife, including rare or endangered species. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 
maintained by the California State Department of Fish and Game will be consulted to determine if there are 
known rare or endangered species in the bay waters. The EIR will cover the need for any special permits 
required and current data on commercial species regulations. Mitigation measures will be included to protect 
species if required. 

There are no existing trees on the piers. No further discussion will be required in the EIR. 

9. Geology/T opoqraphy - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards (slides, 

subsidence, erosion and liquefaction)? ' X X 

b. Change substantially the topography or any unique geologic or 

physical features of the site? X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



f\- 20 



The project site is in a Special Geologic Study Area as shown in the Community Safety Element of the San 
Francisco Master Plan. This map indicates areas in which one or more geologic hazards exist. Reports on 
the geology of the land side of the project as well as the marine geology of the Bay are available in the 
project file. A geotechnical investigation report(prepared prior to the Loma Prieta earthquake) by a 
California-licensed geotechnical engineer is on file with the Department of City Planning and available for 
public review as part of the project file. 78/ 

Pre and post-quake status of Pier 45 and the four sheds located on it are also available for public review. 
79/ 



There is an existing rock dike, remnant of an old pier foundation. It is east of the National Park and north 
of the existing concrete seawall. The subsurface materials are younger bay mud, bay side sand, older bay 
mud and Fi'anciscan formation. Based on the exploration and laboratory tests performed for the proposed 
project and a review of geotechnical data pertinent to the area, it is the opinion of the geotechnical 
consultants that the harbor project is feasible. The major geotechnical considerations are foundation 
supports, rock dike stability, lateral resistance of piles, and seismic stability of the proposed structures. The 
soils underlying the site there have a low potential for soil liquefaction in a major seismic event. There are 
no indications that the site is underlain by any active or potentially active faults or that any such faults trend 
toward the site. The above cited reports contain recommendations regarding the size of piles to use for the 
foundations, and fill for the seawall and parking area which the project sponsor would incorporate into the 
final design for the facility. 

The correction of earthquake damage at Pier 45, which included soils compaction of the fill 

portion of the Pier that was subject to liquefaction, makes expanded use of the existing sheds feasible. - 

710/. Thus, there is no further need to discuss seismic and geologic issues in the EIR. 



10. Water - Could the project: ... r^. 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Substantially degrade water quality, or contaminate a public 

water supply? X X 

b. * Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources, or 

interfere substantially with ground water recharge? X X 

c* Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? X 



A major focus of the EIR will be water quality. This will include analysis of the existing situation, any impact 
of the proposed project on water quality, and the measures that can be taken to avoid further water quality 
impacts. The EIR will describe and discuss relevant prior investigations of water quality. 

Contamination of a public water supply will not be discussed in the EIR. It is not an issue because the bay 
is not a drinking water source. 

The limited potential for effects on drainage, hydrology, and groundwater as a result of the proposed project 
will be discussed. The analysis will include consideration of the effects of erosion, sedimentation, added 
nitrates, biological oxygen demand, and other effects of runoff from the landside facilities into the Bay. This 
will include a discussion in the EIR of the placement of the new fill and potential construction impacts, such 
as increased turbidity in the Bay water. 



Drainage patterns and groundwater recharge from increased impervious surfaces are not relevant issues. 
The proposed project does not include groundwater wells or increased pumping of groundwater; therefore, 
the EIR need not discuss depletion of groundwater resources as a result of the proposed project. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



/\. 21 



1 1 . Energy/Natural Resources - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 

a. * Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts 

of fuel, water, or energy, or use these in a wasteful manner? X X 

b. Have a substantial effect on the potential use, extraction, 

or depletion of a natural resource? X 

The proposed project would increase demand for and use of public services and utilities on the site and 
Increase water and energy consumption, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in this area. 
Further discussion of these topics will not occur in the EIR. 



12. Hazards - Could the project: 



a. * Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, 

production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to 
people or animal or plant populations in the area affected? 

b. * Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency 

evacuation plans? 

c. Create a potentially substantial fire hazard? 



Yes No Discussed 



The EIR will evaluate the potential for the presence of soil and/or groundwater contamination due to the 
existing fuel storage tanks, and other potentially hazardous uses. The potential for Bay water contamination 
the potential for the generation of hazardous wastes as a result of project implementation will be discussed 
in the EIR, as well as the potential impact of the storage and use of hazardous materials. 

The site is within the jurisdiction of San Francisco Public Works Code, Article 20, Sections 1000 through 
1015, commonly known as the Maher Ordinance, and should 50 cubic yards or more be excavated, testing 
of all soil disturbed would be required using the Article 20 protocol. This requirement and procedure will be 
further discussed in the EIR. 

The EIR will discuss existing emergency response plans in place within the police, fire, and Coast Guard 
services as well as the related infrastructure serving the site, particularly for fire protection. The adequacy 
of these services will be addressed in relation to the demands of the proposed project. 



13. Cultural - Could the project: 



Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic 
archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural 
significance to a community, ethnic or social group; or a 
paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study? 
Conflict with established recreational, educational, 
religious or scientific uses of the area? 
Conflict with the preservation of buildings subject to the 
provisions of Article 10 or (proposed) Article 11 of the City 
Planning Code? 



Yes No Discussed 



Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A cultural resources study has been prepared for the project and is available in the project file. /II/ The 
conclusions of the study are summarized here. The study is based on a review of historical literature and 
primary sources, and focuses on the potential existence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources below 
ground (or water) level which could be impacted by construction. Until the 1890s, the site was below the 
waterllne of San Francisco Bay. It was largely filled between 1899 and 1929, much of the filling resulting 
from the disposal of rubble created by the earthquake and fire of 1906. A variety of industrial uses, maritime 
uses and recreational uses have been located in the area. The site area has been the focus of the San 
Francisco fishing industry since about 1900, when the industry's earlier location to the east, between Union 
and Lombard Streets was developed for general shipping. 

The consultants identified several possible cultural resources which could exist on the project site and 
recommend a mitigation program to assure that any such resources which may be discovered during the 
course of construction can be identified and recovered or recorded as appropriate. It is possible that a shell 
mound (or portions of a shellmound) which was reported in 1861 as being near the project site still exists. 
The wreck of the Tonquin was shown on an 1853 map north of Jefferson Street near Leavenworth which 
is within the project site. Rubble from the 1906 earthquake was used to fill the site. These secondary 
deposits could yield artifacts of interest to scholars and the public. Materials from 1 9th century industry could 
exist on the project site. Because of these potential cultural resources, the consultants recommend that 
archaeological monitoring should be conducted whenever subsurface construction is undertaken in the 
project area. This program of archaeological monitoring, which would mitigate the potentially significant 
impacts of the project on cultural resources, is included by the Project Sponsor and is described in more 
detail in the section "Mitigation Measures Proposed as Part of the Project". 

The San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park leases its space on the Hyde Street Pier from the Port. 
The Park holds two National Register properties on or near the project site. The Tubbs Cordage Company 
Office was built around 1890 at 61 1 Front Street. It was moved to its present location, about 10 to 15 feet 
west of the original site, in 1963. The Lewis Ark is a houseboat which was probably built in Belvedere or 
Tiburon in the early 1900s. It was moved to the Hyde Street Pier from Belvedere in 1969. It sits on the 
boundary of the site. Both of these structures would be moved to another location within the leasehold of 
the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park as a result of the Project./12/ These wood frame 
structures would not be structurally affected by this move. Because both of these buildings were moved to 
their present locations in the 1960s, their historic value does not result from their current location, although 
their value is greater in a waterfront setting, which they will continue to possess. The project would not result 
in significant impacts on these historic resources. Several of the historic ships which are part of the San 
Francisco Maritime National Historic Park collection at the Hyde Street Pier are also on the National Register 
of Historic Places. The ships and the physical structures in the Maritime Park would not be adversely 
impacted by the project. 

As an expansion of the existing fishing services facilities, the project is viewed as one that could conflict with 
established recreational uses of the water in the vicinity. The swimming and boating clubs located nearby 
believe the potential for additional water quality degradation would be hazardous to their members. The 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area borders the site and there are other educational institutions in the 
local area that have plans to expand their activities. Issues related the proposed uses of the site and 
potential conflicts with the recreational, educational, and scientific uses of the site and the surrounding 
waters, require further discussion in the EIR. 

Several other potentially historic buildings are located within the project site, and were identified in the 
Northern Waterfront Findings Report and subsequent research by the Department of City Planning./13/ 
The bulkhead building and sheds at Pier 45 were built in 1929. Several buildings on Fish Alley were built 
in the early 1900s. The bulkhead building and shed at Pier 45 are rated 4 in the Department of City 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 23 



Planning's 1976 Architectural Survey. 714/ These buildings are characteristic of historical maritime uses 
in the area. None of these buildings would be demolished or substantially altered as a result of the project. 



C. OTHER 

Yes No Discussed 

Require approval of permits from City Departments other than 
Department of City Planning or Bureau of Building Inspection or 

from Regional, State or Federal Agencies? X X 

The EIR will discuss all known project-related reviews, permits, and approvals, and the affected permitting 
and responsible agencies, including but not limited to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, 
Regional Water Quality Control Board, United States Coast Guard, and the State of California Boating and 
WatenA/ays. 



D. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PROJECT: 

Yes No N/A Discussed 

1 . Could the project have a significant effect if mitigation 

measures are not included in the project? X X 

2. Are all mitigation measures necessary to eliminate 

significant effects included in the project? X X 

1. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure. Given the strong possibility of encountering the remains of cultural 
or historic artifacts or features within the project site, the sponsor would retain the services of an 
archaeologist(s) with expertise in both prehistoric and ethnographic materials and maritime history. The 
archaeologist would supervise a progrm of on-site monitoring during site excavation and would record 
observations in a permanent log. Should cultural or historic artifacts be found followintg commencement of 
excavation activities, the archaeologist would assess the significance of the find, and immediately report to 
the ERO and the President of the LPAB. Upon receiving the advice of the consultants and the LPAB,the 
ERO would recommend specific mitigation measures, if necessary. The monitoring program, whether or not 
there are finds of significance would result in a written report to be submitted first and directly to the ERO, 
with a copy to the project sponsor. 

Excavation or construction activities which might damage discovered cultural resources would be suspended 
for a total maximum of four weeks over the course of construction to permit inspection, recommendation and 
retrieval, if appropriate. 

If cultural resources of potential significance are discovered, an appropriate security program would be 
implemented to prevent looting or destruction. Any discovered cultural artifact assessed as significant by 
the archaeologist upon concurrence by the ERO and the President of the LPAB, would be placed in a 
repository designated for such materials or displayed in a public place to be determined in conjunction with 
the ERO and the President of the LPAB. 



Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 24 

I 



Some elements of the proposed project are designed to avoid adverse environmental effects. These 
elements will be discussed and identified in the EIR as elements of the proposed project. The EIR will 
contain a mitigation chapter describing these measures and also including other measures which would be 
or could be adopted to reduce potential adverse effects of the project identified in the EIR. 

E. ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives to the proposed project will be defined further and described in the EIR. At a minimum, 
alternatives analyzed will include the following: 

The No Project Alternative. 

An alternative designed with fewer berths and less parking, and fewer new uses in the sheds on 
Pier 45. 

Alternative site(s). An evaluation of whether alternative sites for certain portions of the project are 
feasible will be provided. Such sites may include building new facilities at an alternative location. 
The extent to which utilization of other sites would mitigate any significant environmental impacts 
will be discussed. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



E. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Yes No Discussed 

1 .* Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- 
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant 
or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of 

California history or pre-history? _X X 



2* Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the 
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 

3. * Does the project have possible environmental effects which are indi- 

vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Analyze in the light 
of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.) 

4. * Would the project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, 

either directly or indirectly? 



The project would contribute to cumulative development impacts at Fisherman's Wharf, primarily in the areas 
of transportation and water quality. Applicable cumulative impacts will be discussed in the EIR. The EIR 
will address the potential for adverse environmental effects for the areas of study discussed in Section B of 
this Initial Study. 



G. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY 



I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the Department of City Planning. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 

WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures, numbers , in 

the discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 
will be prepared. 



X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 



Date: 



7^ 



BARBARA W. SAHM 
Environmental 
Review Officer 
for 

Lucian R. Blazej 
Director of Planning 



* Derived from Stale EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 26 



IV. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



FEDERAL AGENCIES 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

United States General Services Administration 

United States Maritime Administration, Western Region 

United States National Park Service 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

United States Coast Guard 

STATE AGENCIES 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Archaeological Inventory - Northwest Information Center 

Department of Boating and Waterways 

State Office of Intergovernmental Management 

State Lands Commission 

REGIONAL AGENCIES 

Association of Bay Area Governments 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Bay Conservation and Development Commission 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

California Coastal Conservancy 

Save San Francisco Bay 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 
Recreation and Park Department 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 

San Francisco Fire Department Division of Planning and Research 
OTHER AGENCIES 

County of San Mateo Planning Department 
San Mateo County Harbor District 
Port of Oakland 
LIBRARIES 

San Francisco Main Library 

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS and CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUPS 



See List in Project File #93.574E 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 27 



MEDIA 

San Francisco Examiner 

San Mateo Times 

San Francisco Independent 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



PLEASE NOTE THAT FIGURES 1 THROUGH 5 WERE PRODUCED BY THE TEAM OF MOFFATT & 
NICHOL/AGS,INC/KWAN HENMI/STEVENS & ASSOC. IN 1988 for the Port of San Francisco. 

NOTES TO TEXT: 

1. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers did an analysis of the Pier for the National Park Service, San Francisco 
Maritime N.H.P.. The report: "Hyde Street Pier Architectural and Engineering Study" is in the Planning 
Department file and documents the status of the Pier and what needed to be done to it in March of 1 990 
for Maritime Park use. 

2. Moffat & Nichols, AGS Inc., Kwan Henmi Architects, Fisherman's Wharf Feasibility Study . June 1988. 

3. FEMA Project - Pier 45, Note to File by Catherine Bauman, October 26, 1990. 

4. Conversation with Port Representative, Dan Hoddap - October 21, 1993 

5. Information derived from earlier studies done for the Fisherman's Wharf Area Plan. 

6. Information provided in a telephone conversation with the Assistant Harbormaster for Pier 39 on 
March 3, 1994. 



7. Bendix Environmental Research Inc., Fisherman' Wharf Seafood Center Noise Report . August 4, 
1989. dBA is a measure of sound in units of decibels (dB). The "A" denotes the A-wieighted scale, 
which simulates the response of the human ear to various frequencies of sound. 

8. Fisherman's Wharf Harbor Geotechnical Investigation Report , prepared by AGS, Inc for the Port of 
San Francisco, June 1, 1988. 

9. Need to get titles for geotechnical reports done for the Pier 45 work. 



10. Pier 45 Geotechnical Reports - earthquake damage and reconstruction 



11. Laurence H. Shoup and Suzanne Baker, A Cultural Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf 
Seafood Center Project Area and Environs . March 1989. 

12 Michael Bell, Project Manager, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, telephone 
conversation, March 30,1994. 



13. Department of City Planning, Northern Waterfront Findings Report . March 1987. 

14. The San Francisco Department of City Planning conducted a citywide invertory of architecturally 
significant buildings in 1976. Buildings were awarded a rating for architectural merit ranging from a low 
of "0" to a high of "5". In the opinion of those who conducted the survey, the best 10% of the City's 
buildings were included in the survey, and those rated "3" to "5" represent 2% of the City's building stock. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 29 



i 

i 

I 



APPENDIX B. 

WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT QUALITY DATA, OIL SPILL NOTIFICATION 



APPENDIX B 



8 



8 



S 



lO 

a* 

n 
S 

in 

Q£ 
UJ 
Q. 

O 
OQ 

< 
X 

UJ 
Ui 

oc 
t- 
f/i 

Ui 

o 
>- 

X 
Q£ 
O 



< 

o 

o 
z 



(0 



< 

O 

tu 

< 



S. 



•e to 

c o 

.2 tS w .« 

2 I i 

</» > 2 



v> 



•s s ^ 
55 < 2 



8 



a at o 
z w z 



O <« w 

saw 
5) < 



M 
« 

K 

O) 

c 

Q. 

E 
n 

(A 



.2 0) 3 -Q 

.£ O ifl 



Q CN Q 
Z CM Z 



<2 O w 



re 



is - 



tl 



UJ 

m 
< 



s 



si 



Q *f Q 
Z Z 



1" 



N 



"9b "9) "B> 



CO 



N 



1 f 

5 I 



A. 32.. 



Reaional 


Monitorina 1 


Program*" 


2.857 
0.031 


0.838 
0.107 


0.59 


1.088 


0.339 


0.660 


0.031 


0.2181 


0.049 


0.024 




























































EPA Water 


Quality 
Standards'* 


9,600,000 


000'096 




m 


m 








?3 


1 


















CM 


6,800 


3,100 






















sin Plan Update, Table III-1). 
















Basin Plan Water 


Quality 
Objectives* 


















































1* California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. 1995 Basin Plan Update. Adopted by RWQCB June 21 , 1995 but not yet approved by State Board. 








on, 












Francisco Bay. 








Station 6 
Northeast 

• of 
Breakwater 




15.0 J 
ND 


6.8 J 1 


NDl 


ON 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


O 

z 


NDl 




Q 

z 


o 
z 


o 
z 


o 
z 




NDl 


NDl 


ND 


ND| 


O 
z 


ND 


ND 




•• U S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Standards Regulations, 40 CFR 131 . Saltvrater Dissolved Metals Criteria, May 1995 and PAHs Dec. 1992. 


*** Water quality data for conventional parameters and metals from Rtehardson Bay station. May 1993; PAHs data from Verba Buena station, March 1993. ) 


Laboratory data suggest possik>le contaminatnn. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 


Organophosphorous pesticides Include azinphos methyl, twistar, chtorpyrifos, coumaphos, demeton, diazinon, dichlorvos, disulfoton, ethoprop. fensulfothion, tenth! 






(0 

m 

c 
o 

n 








1(f) Srte-specific water quality otjective for copper for San Francisco Bay is under review. The U S EPA criterion is 2.9 ug/L and 4.9 ug/L has been considered for San 


4-day average). 






Station 5 
West of 
Municipal 
Pier 


17.1 J 
ND 

rt -7 1 


■> Q D 

- z z 
r> 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


□N 1 


□ N 1 




NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 




ND 


ND] 


NDi 


NDi 


NDI 


aN 1 


aN 1 








1(b) PuWic health standards for ocean water contact sports (Title 1 7, Calif. Code of Regs.). See also objectives for coliform bacteria, water contact recrei 






1(e) Water quality objective for Toxk; Pollutants for Surface Waters wUh Salinities Greater than 5 ppt, 4-day average (1995 Basin Plan Update, Table III-3] 






Station 4 
Aquatic 
Park(Dup) 


■> -T Q " 
3 r«- Z c 
tO* c 
c 


11.8J 
ND 


NDl 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 




ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 




ND 


ON 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 




1 merphos, mevinphos, naled, parathion nnethyl, phorate, ronnel, stirophos, tokuthion and trichloronate. All were Not Detected. i 


1 (a) No numerical otjjectrve, narrative objective only. I I I I I I 


pdate. Table III-2). 1 




1(g) Water quality objective based on 24-hour average (1995 Basin Plan Update, Table III-3). The U.S. EPA criterion for nickel is 8.3 ug/L ( 






Station 4 
Aquatic 
Park 


16.1 J 
ND 

■in -7 1 


■) a a 
- z z 


NDi 


9.3 J 1 


NDl 


ND] 


ND| 


NDl 


ND 


ND 




NDl 


NDl 


ND 


NDl 




NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDI 


NDl 


NDi 








Station 3 
Main Basin 
(Outer 
Hart)or) 


■> ^ Q " 
r fNi u 


1 -> Q 
- OO Z 

1 oo 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


o 
z 


ND 


ND 


ND 




ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 




ND 


Q 
z 


ND 


0.731 


NDl 


ND 


ND 




1(c) EPA Bacteriological criteria for virater contact recreation, salt water, steady state value (1995 Basin Plan U 


1 (d) Un-ionized amnwnia as Nitrogen maximum for Central Bay. 1 1 1 1 






station 2 
Outer 
Lagoon 


■> CO Q - 

•>» g> Z h 

» 


11.0J 
ND 


ND| 


ND| 


NDl 


ND| 


ND| 


NDl 


NDl 


ND| 




NDl 


NDl 


ND| 


ND| 




NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDl 


NDI 


o 
z 








Station 1 
Inner 
Lagoon 


' -> Q - 

» in z c 

i> Csi u 

CM -r 


1 -> o 

3 CM Z 
3 0> 


ND| 


ND] 


ND| 


ND| 


ND| 


ND| 


NDl 


ND| 




NDl 


NDl 


CO 


o 




NDl 


NDl 


ND| 


NDl 


ND| 


NDl 


NDl 




Update, Table III-3, for selenium. ] 


us maximum. | | j 


Reporting 
Limit 


7.29 
9.54 

•7 O 


8.47 
5.42 


5.74 


7.99 1 


7.68 


5.28 


10.2] 


7.46] 


in 


6.75 




in 


in 


m 


in 




S 




m 
d 


SO 


SO 


SO 1 


0.05-10 




Units 


3) O) "B) "i 

= c c c 


3> o) ra 
: c c 


ng/L 1 




ra 
c 


ra 
c 


ra 
c 










1" 


ra 
c 










!• 




!> 


!> 








Parameter 


Phenanthrene 
Anthracene 


Pyrene 

Benzo(a)anthracene 


1 Chrysene 


Ben2o(b)fluoranthene 


1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 


0) 

c 

0) 

>. 

a. 

0) 

CD 


Benzo(a)pyrene 


Indeno (1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene \ 


Dib€nzo(a,h)anthracene \ 


Benzo(ghi)perylene 


Organo tins 


Monobutyttin 


Dibutyltin ] 


Tributyltin \ 


Tetrabutyltin 


\ Petroluem-related Hydrocarbons 


Total Petroleum, as gasoline | 


Total Petroleum, as diesel j 


Benzene 


Toluene 


Ethyltienzene 


Xylene | 


Organophosphorus Pesticides** 


Notes: 


(h) No values listed in 1995 Basin Plan I 

(i) Silver crrterion based on instantaneoi 



19 
C 

o 

I 



ft 

r ° 

o 

z 



m 



o a 

« c 
5 ^ 



c s 

O (D 



C S 
S 3 



c 

.£ O is 
10 ~' I 
S 



g » § 
2 O 



2 I I 
TS I 



C 

r ■ 



w 




0) 








E 


i 


(0 




w 




(0 


is 


a 






(0 




Si 




o 




3 




g. 




O 




Q. 








3 



o 

1 

o 
a. 

£~ 

3 



o> 

2 - 
> 

(0 

>. 
"9 



T3 
0) 

(A 

re 
m 



O O) 



re ^ 



(5 

"8. 

3 " 



0) 
Q. 

E 

(0 

w 

5! 
13 
o 

3 
Q 
II 

a. 



(0 

re 
a. 



Q. 



I"' 



in ' 
r . 

s. 

o 

E 
C 

"re 

3 

o 

II 



(0 

< 

re 
c 



•5 
c 



c 

% 

O 



(A 
UJ 



CM 

8^ 



< 



3 



00 

o 

c 
o 
O 



re 

3 

o 



a: 



I 

(0 

I 

I 



^34 



Advanced IBioIogical Testing Inc. 



TABLE 2 

SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
Fbherman's Wharf- Port of San Frandsco 
Sampled 9/1/1994 

0UT6R. H4RBe«. OoTtie 

tAteei^ Alcatraz 

Analyte (1) Site FW-1 FW-2 Reference Detection Limit 

Achieved (2) Required (3) 

Grain size(%) 



Grsvcl 


n n 

U>U 


u.o 


7.8 






Cam J 






on 7 






Silt 






n < 






Clay 


45J 


30.1 


1.0 






Solids (%) (Dry WL) 


49.2 


51.9 


84.9 




0.1 














Total 




1 flO 




U.X 


n < 


Wucr 2K>iuoie 




<U.Z 


<JJ.k 


n 1 

U.i 


n 1 


Total Organic Carbon {%) 


1.17 


0.84 


0.06 




0.1 


TKrH (mg/kg) 


43.7 


48.9 


88.5 


1.0 


0.1 


OrygnoHn» fug/kgl 












Tetrabatyltin 


3.05 


<1.9 


<1.2 


1.0 


1.0 


Tribotyltin 


<2.0 


Z93 


<1.2 


1.0 


1.0 


uiMuyiun 








1 n 


l.U 


Xnono batyi Dn 




<1.9 




1.0 


1 A 
l.U 














Arsenic 




7 S 1 


< '71 




A 1 
U.I 


C.-A.-'. (C*A\ 

Cacxmium ^Ua; 


0.368 


u juy 


<0.024 




0.1 


Cnroniiuni vv.r) 


69.9 


66.7 


22.4 




0.1 


Copper (Cu) 


.4 C Q 


41.0 


D.O/ 




A 1 
U.I 


Lead (Pb) 


'IT j4 
Z/.4 


32.2 


•7 1/: 




0.1 


Mercury (Hg; 


0.240 


0.362 


0.038 




0.2 


IvicKel 










0.1 


oeienium ^^e) 






^1 1 s 


1.0 


A 1 


Silver (Ag) 


<0.081 


<0.077 


^.047 


0.04 


0.1 


Zinc (Zn) 


103 


98.3 






0.1 


resticiaes ana r\_DS (ui£/Kgr 












4,4' - ODD 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


4>4* - DDE 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


4,4* - DDT 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Aldrin 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


alpha-BHC 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


beta BHC 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Chlordane 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Delta-BHC 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


- 


Diddrin 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endosuifan I 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


EndosuUan II 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endosolfan Sulfate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Endrin 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endrin Aldehyde 


ND 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Heplachlor 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Heptaciilor Epoxide 


ND 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Lindane 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Methozychlor 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Toxaphene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


PCS Arochlor 1016 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1221 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1232 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1242 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1248 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1254 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1260 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 



(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis unless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since the dry wdght values are arithmeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE. 



A. 35 



Advanced biological TTesting Inc. 

TABLE 2 (ConI'd) 



SUMMARY OF SEDLMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
Fisherman's Wharf- Port of San Frandsco 
Sampled 9/yi994 







OUTB« 














Alcatraz 






Analyte(l) Site 


FW-l 


rw-2 


Reference 


Detection 


Limit 










Achvd (2) 


ReqdP) 


PAHs(M«/kK) 












Naphthalene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Accnaphthylene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Acenaphthene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Fluorene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Phenanthrene 


70.7 


73.2 


258 


20 


20 


Anthracene 


ND 


5Z0 


76.8 


20 


20 


Fluoranthene 


143 


229 


237 


20 


20 


Pyrene 


182 


391 


350 


20 


20 


Bcnzo (A) Anthracene 


75.0 


128 


144 ' 


20 


20 


Chrysene 


S4.6 


158 


140 


20 


20 


Bcnzo (B) Fluoranthene 


ND 


109 


51.1 


20 


20 


Benzo (K) Fluoranthene 


ND 


183 


67.1 


20 


20 


Bcnzo (A) Pyrene 


ND 


173 


93.1 


20 


20 


Dibenzo (AJl) Anthracene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Ideno (1A3-CD) Pyrene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Benzo (G.HJ) Pcrylene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Total 


555.3 


1496.2 


1417.1 






Phthalate Esters dif/^fd 












Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


50 


20 


Butylbcnzyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


8J 


20 


Dl-n-butyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


9 


20 


Diethyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


12 


20 


Dimethyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


7.3 


20 


Di-n-octyl Phthalate 


ND 


NT) 


NT) 


75 


20 


Total 
















Initial Ammonia 
Final Ammonia 



(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis vmless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since the dry weight values are arilhmeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE. 



A. 30 



Advanced Biological Testing Inc. 



TABLE 2 (Cont'd) 

SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
Fbhcnnan's Wharf- Port of San Franci5co 
Sampled 10/28/94 

Analyted) Site FW-1 FW-2 Detection Limit 

Achieved (2) Required (3) 

Grain size (%) 



Gravel 


1.3 


0.6/1.2 






Sand 


10.6 


23.0/27.4 






Silt 


45.9 


38.9/34J 






Clay 


42.2 


37.5/37.0 






Solids (%) (Dry Wt) 


53.5 


54.4 




0.1 


SuindM (mf/kf) 










Total 


198 


224 


Ul 


0.5 


Water Soluble 


<0.2 


<0.2 


0.1 


0.1 


Total Organic Carbon (%) 


1.19 


1.03 




0.1 


TRPH (mg/kg) 


77.9 


95.8 


1.0 


0.1 


Orpanntlns (u^/Vf^ 










Tetrabutyltin 


<1.9 


<1.8 


1.0 


1.0 


Tribatyltin 


<1.9 


3.68 


1.0 


1.0 


Dibutyltin 


<1.9 


<1.8 


1.0 


1.0 


Monobotyltin 


<1.9 


<1.8 


1.0 


1.0 


Mrtah /rny/Vy^ 










Arsenic (As) 


8.41 


7.46 




0.1 


Cadmium (Cd) 


0.538 


0.625 




0.1 


Chromium (Cr) 


69-5 


64.0 




0.1 


Copper (Cu) 


49.3 


49.3 




0.1 


Lead(Pb) 


33.5 


36.6 




0.1 


Mercury (Hg) 


0.314 


0.393 




0.2 


Nickel (Ni) 


66.2 


57.4 




0.1 


Selenium (Se) 


<1.87 


<1.84 


1.0 


0.1 


Silver (Ag) 


0.247 


0.325 




0.1 


Zinc(Zn) 


115 


116 




0.1 


Pesticides and PCBs (Uf/Vf) 










4,4" - DDD 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


4,4'. DDE 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


4,4' - DDT 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Aklrin 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


alpha-BHC 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


beU BHC 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Chlordane 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


DelU-BHC 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Dieldrin 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


EndosuUan I 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endosullanll 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endosnlfan Sulfate 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Endrin 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endrin Aldehyde 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Heptachlor 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Heptachlor Epoxide 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Lindane 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Methozychlor 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Toxaphene 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


PCB Arochlor 1016 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCBArochlorl221 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCBArodilorlZ32 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1242 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1248 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1254 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 12«0 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 



(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis unless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since the dry weight values are arithroeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE 



A .^1 



Advanced IBiological Testing Inc. 



TABLE 2 (Cont'd) 



AMlyte(l) 



Site 



SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
Fisherman's Wharf- Port of San Francisco 
Sampled 10/28/94 



FW-l 



FW.2 



Detection 



Lbnit 



PAHs (ua/kfd 



Naphthalene 

Actnaphth3icne 

Acenaphlhcne 

Fluorene 

Flienanthrene 

Anthracene 

FlDoranthene 

Pyrene 

BcnzD (A) Anthracene 
Chryscne 

Bcnxo (B) FlDoranthene 
Benxo (K) Flnoranthene 
Benzo (A) Pyrene 
Dibenzo (A3) Anthracene 
Ideno (1A3-CD) Pyrene 
Benzo (G^IJ) Perylcne 
Total 



ND 
49^ 
ND 
ND 
200 
86^ 
308 
439 
139 
165 
113 
189 
222 
ND 
132 
175 
2218 



ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
50.2 
814 
ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
ND 
13i6 



Achvd(2} 

20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
,20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 



Reqd (3) 

20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 



Phthalate Esters (>jl»/1cs) 
Bis (2-«thylbexyl) Phthalate 
Butylbenzyl Phthalate 
Di-n-butyl FbthaUle 
Diethyl Phthalate 
Dimethyl PhthalaU 
Di-n-octyl Phthalate 
Total 



204 
ND 
126 
ND 
ND 
ND 
330 



210 
ND 
134 
ND 
ND 
ND 
344 



50 
8.5 
9 
12 
73 
75 



20 
20 
20 
20 
20 
20 



(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis unless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since the dry weight values are arithmeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE. 



A. 38 



OU SpiU Notification List 



For Very Large Oil Spills : 

Notify local response coordinator, Battalion Chief No. 2 
at 911 or (415) 861-8000 or (415) 861-8020. Battalion 
Chief will decide whether to activate incident command 
system. Battalion Chief will make all other necessary 
notifications . 

For Smaller Oil Spills or Oil Soil] In Which U.S. Coast Guard or 
another governmental aaencv is the fi rst resoohder: 

FEDERAL NOTIFICATIONS 

1. U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 
(510) 437-3073 

2. National Response Center 
(800) 424-8802 

3 . U.S . EPA, Region IX ' 
(415) 974-8131 OR 
Spill Phone: (415) 774-2000 

4. Chem-Trec (Optional, for information on haz . mats.) 
(800) 424-9300 



STATE NOTIFICATIONS 

1. ■ .Office of Emergency Services (OES) 
, ' (800) 852-7550 

2. Department of Fish and Game, OSPRE 
(916) 445-9338 

(800) 852-7550 

3. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 
Region 2 

(510) 286-1255 



NOTE: MAKE NOTIFICATIONS OVER THE PHONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 

AFTER YOU BECOME AWARE OF THE INCIDENT. PROVIDE 
INFORMATION ON ATTACHED SHEET. INFORM ENVIRONMENTAL 
DEPARTMENT STAFF OF THE INCIDENT SO THAT PORT CAN SUBMIT 
THE REQUIRED FOLLOW UP REPORTS. 



TAB B: EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION INFORMATION 



As soon as an oil discharge is known, the Local Response Coordinator 
is to make the necessary notifications to the relevant agencies and 
organizations on the notification list depending on the nature and 
location of the spill. The Local Response Coordinator should provide 
enough information for the contact persons to be prepared for 
response operations specific to the spill, and to respond in a timely 
manner. This information should be reported, if known, to the 
appropriate agencies/response personnel on the contact list and 
would include, but not limited to, the following: 

1 . Caller's name, position, and phone number to call ba^ck for more 
information; location of the spill 

2. Location of the spill 

3. Date and time of the spill 

4. Type of material 

5. Estimated size of the spill 

6. Status of the spill and response actions that have been taken 
(abatement/control measures) 

7. Source and cause of the spill 

8. Potential public health and safety issues and environmental 
damages 

9. Weather and seastate conditions 

1 0. Immediate needs and proper precautions to take at the spill site 

1 1 . Name of the Potential Responsible Party (PRP) and phone number, 
if known 

1 2. Other agencies or response personnel that have already been 
notified of the spill. 



APPENDIX B 

Potential Water Quality Effects on Marine Biota 



POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ON MARINE BIOTA 

MEC Analytical Systems conducted a review of the 1995 sampling results with respect to potential water 
quality effects on marine biota and specifically those chemicals of most concem to marine organisms,^ as 
summarized below. 

The chemicals that were sampled and analyzed for in the project area that are of potential concern to marine 
organisms based on the concentrations measured include copper, tributyitin, benzo(a)anthracene, and 
chrysene. In general, the measured concentrations of these chemicals would not t>e expected to be harmful 
to marine organisms, as discussed below. 

The dissolved copper concentration was measured at 3.2 ug/L in the Inner Lagoon and 2.8 ug/L in Aquatic 
Park, both exceeding the current U.S. EPA standard of 2.4 ug/L (both as the criterion maximum 
concentration and the criterion continuous concentration). However, the measured concentrations are not 
at a level expected to be toxic to marine organisms. The Clean Water Act is currently under revision, and 
the U.S. EPA is considering revising the saltwater copper criteria to 4.8 ug/L (criterion maximum 
concentration dissolved copper) and 3.1 ug/L (criterion continuous concentration dissolved copper).^ 

Tributyitin was detected above the reporting limit (13 ng/L) in the Inner Lagoon, but was less than the 
reporting limit of 5 ng/L at the other five sampling stations. Although the current Basin Plan has no water 
quality objective listed for tributyitin, the Basin Plan does indicate that 5 ng/L (30-day average) would be 
protective of human health . Tributyitin has been found to be one of the most toxic synthetic chemicals 
known for some marine life and is acutely toxic to marine organisms at concentrations as low as 100 ng/L 
The concentrations measured in the project area in May 1995 were below the level that would be expected 
to affect the moratility of marine life. Chronic effects to marine organisms have been observed at 
concentrations of 9 ng/L (including impacts to the development of reproductive organs in juvenile mud 
snails, Nucella lapillus), 10 ng/L (affecting egg production In adult copepods, Acartia tonsa), and 20 ng/L 
(inhibiting growth in oyster spat, Crassostrea gigas). Greater effects occur at concentrations of 100 to 200 
ng/L Thus, some sublethal effects to marine organisms could occur in the Inner Lagoon due to the 



' MEC Analytical Systems, 1995. Marine Biota Setting and Environniental Consequences of Water Quality, San Franctsco Pier 45 
Project March, July and August, 1995. 

^Federal Register, Volunie 60, No. 86, Thursday, May 4, 1995. Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR 131. 

•'state Water Resources Conti-ol Board, 1988. Tributyitin: A California Water Quality Assessment. Division of Water Quality, 
Report No. 88-12. December 1988. 

Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 EIR A.41 



APPENDIX B 

Potential Water Quality Effects on Marine Biota 

presence of tributyltin in the range of the concentration measured. 

Benzo(a)anthracene was not detected in concentrations above the method detection limit of 5.42 ng/L The 
U.S. EPA criteria for benzo(a)anthracene for protection of human health (based on a one in a million risk 
for carcinogen) are 2.8 ng/L for consumption of water and organisms and 31 ng/L for consumption of 
organisms only. Acute toxicity of benzo(a)anthracene to aquatic organisms has been demonstrated at 
concentrations of approximately 1 to 2 ppm (1 to 2 million ng/L). Lepomis macrochirus (Wuegill) exposed 
to 1 ppm (1 million ng/L) benzo(a)anthracene for six months showed 87 percent mortality.' In a study on 
photo-induced toxicity of PAHs to larvae of the fathead minnow {Pimephales promelas), concentrations of 
1.8 ppm (1.8 million ng/L) benzo(a)anthracene resulted in a LC50 (lethal concentration in which 50 percent 
of the test population exhibited lethal effects) at 65.1 hours.^ Accumulation effects would be expected to 
occur at lower concentrations. The polychaete Nereis virens exposed to water contaminated with 0.075 to 
0.102 ppm (75,000 to 102,000 ng/L) benzo(a)anthracene accumulated and metabolized this PAH.* Results 
of these studies indicate that levels of benzo(a)anthracene measured in the project area are lower by several 
orders of magnitude than those likely to harm aquatic organisms. 

Chrysene was detected at one station at a concentration of 6.8 ng/L (or 0.0000068 ppm). The U.S. EPA 
criteria for chrysene for protection of human health (based on a 10'® risk for carcinogen) are 2.8 ng/L for 
consumption of water and organisms and 31 ng/L for consumption of organisms only. In a study by Rossi 
and Neff (1978),^ immature specimens of the sediment-dwelling nnarine worm Neanthes arenaceodentata 
were exposed to concentrations of 1 ppm chrysene. Lethal effects (50 percent mortality in 96 hours) were 
not obsery/ed for this compound. Toxicity of the various PAHs tested in the study appeared to be related 
to their solubility in water. The lack of acute toxicity exhibited by chrysene may be related to its relatively 
low solubility in water. Although few studies are available on toxicity of chrysene to marine organisms, 
information from the Rossi and Neff study suggest that concentrations of chrysene measured in the project 
area are not harmful to benthic marine organisms. 



* Brown, E.R., L. Keith, J.J. Hazdra, and T. Arndt, 1973. Tunwrs In fish caught In polluted waters: Possible explanations. 
Bibl. Haematol. 40: 47-57. 

'Oris, J.T., and J.P. Giesy, Jr., 1987. The photo-induced toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to larvae of the 
fathead minnow (Pimephates promelas) . Chemosphere 16: 1395-1404. 

' McElroy, A.E., 1990. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metflbolisj in the polychaete Nereis virens. Aquat. Toxicol. 18:35-50. 

^ Rossi, S.S., and J.M. Neff, 1978. Toxicity of polynuclear aromatic hydrocartx>ns to the polychaete Neanthes 
arenaceodentata. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 9:220-223. I 



Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 EIR 



A.42 



< 

LU 
< 
< 

m 

Li. 
CO 



CO 
LL 



Q. 
0) 

Q 



O) 



to 






n 


r- 


ro 




oT 


CO 




If) 


CO 



o 

CO 



o 
co' 



o 

05 



CO 



a> 

Q. 







o 


CO 


rg 


in 


o> 1 


ai 




COj 


o 




! 




CO 















I"- 

CO 
CM 



o 


CO 


■q- 


cn 




CO 




co 


IS) 


id" 


m" 




to 




CO 


to 













CO 
O) 
CO 



eg 
o 
CO 



tu 

I 



0> 

o 

a. 



a> 
X 



m 

CO 
CO 

to" 

CM 
00 



CM 



CO 

o 
to 



CO I CO 

CO I •"9- 

o>" in 



to 



m 
o 



(O 



o 
o 



CM 

o 

CD 
OO" 

to 



o 
to 

■"3- 



O 
O 

m 
eo" 

CM 
CD 



OO 
CM 

to" 
m 



o 



CJ>" 



to 

CM 



O 
O 
O 



CM_ 

cm" 



(M 
O 
IT 

to 



o 
ro 
in 
cm" 
to 



o 
o 
o 



CO 

to 
to 



o 



to 
cn 

(O 



CM I 



CM 


(O 


o 


to 




CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


to 


to 


m 


CO 


C0_ 


to_ 


co" 




^" 




cm" 


(D 


o 


CM 


CM 


to 


CN 


m 




to 


CO 


</» 


«/» 




to 


</> 






tfi 






r-- 


to 


CO 


o 


CO 




CM 


CO 


o 


o 




to 




o 


r~ 




to" 


C3>' 






in 


CM 


CM 




ro 


• 


to 


CO 


00 





o 

O 



to 

C7> 
If) 



to 

CO 
to 



o 



CO 
CM 



o 
cr> 
co" 

CM 



O 
O 

to 
m" 
to 



o 
o 
o 



O) 

00 



o 
to 
<J> 

fO" 
CO 
CM 



O 
O 
O 



S"i 

o 
to 



CO 
CM 



CJ) 

c 

LU 

V\ 



o 
OO 
o 

o" 

CM 
CO 



to 
If) 

OO 



to' 



o 

CM 
OO 



O 
CO 
CM 



to 

00 



to 
to 
to 



OO 

o>" 



If) 
to 



CD 

d. 
E 



V) 



w 

V) 



u 

5 



E 

« 
c 
o 
n 

< 



to 
cn 



O 
I- 

Si 

< 
>- 
< 
ffi 

IL 

w 



05 



o 
Q. 



to 

O) I 



US 
(Nl 

(£> 



in 
m 
o 

CD 
CM 
CO 



CD 

o 



in 



o 

(Nl 
ID 



m 
o 

CO 



o 
o 
cn 



O) 



o 
Q. 



o 
o 



00_ 

cm" 



1- 

CM 



in 

CO 

o 
to 



(O 



cmI 



o 
o 

CM 



(O 

o 



o 

(O 



lO 
CM 
(O 



m 
o 

CM 



3 
O 

a 



m 
o 



o 

(O 



CD 

n 
in 

ID 



in 

U5 



CO 



ro 

Z 0) 



Q 



o 

^ Q. 

< O) 

-r " 

^ Q) 
LL CO 

<^ 

ID w 



O 

CO oa 
o ^ 

< u- 



z CL S 
CO Q i 



o m 

! TT 

'T| 03 

cm" cm" 

CO I 

o 



< X 



o 

CD 
■CD_ 

^' 
o 



o 
o 

00 



o 
m" 



ot CO n 
o co' 



o 

CD 
CD 

o , 

lO (N 

I n 
«/»! </» 



CD 
CO 
O 



O 

o 
in 



o 

CD 
CM 



in 

CD 



CD 

to 



to 

CO 



to 



CM 
ID 

m 



o_ 
cd" 



CD 

to 
to 



CO 

o 



o 
o 

CM 



CO 
(N 
CO 

cd' 
a> 



CO 

o 



CO 
ID 

m 



a. 



0) 

o 

a: 



ID 
•V 

vn 

CM 



O 

m 



fO" 



CM 



CO 

CM 



CD 

to 

ID_ 
■<9-" 
CO 

to 



to 

CD 
O 
O 
O 

in 
</» 



o 

(N 
ID 



o 
o 
in 



o 
o 
v_ 
»»■" 
CO 

CM 



to 
in 
CO 



to_ 
in 



m 

CO 



o 

CO 
CO 



CM_ 
(N 



CO 
O 

o" 



to_ 

(N 



to 
to 
in 



CO 



o 



o 
o 

in" 
o 
to 



to 
eo_ 
m" 

CO 

CO 



CO 
CM 
O 



CO 

O 
CO 

o 

CO 



o 

CM 



CM 
CD 
CM 



CD 
•9 



O 
O 
CD 



I 



■o 
o 
u 
a> 



a. 
a. 



o 

T3 



tt> 

m 



O 

c" 
o 
E 

(0 
CO 



o 
O 

0)" 

o 

Vi 



0) 

a. 

o 
CO 



o 



APPENDIX C. 

AIR QUALIPl' STANDARDS AND DATA 



I 

I 

I 

I 

1 



APPENDIX C. AIR QUAUTY STANDARDS AND DATA 



TABLE AQ-1 . STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUAUTY STANDARDS 



Averaging 

Pollutant Time SAAQS /a/ NAAQS /b/ 



Ozone 


1 hour 


0.09 ppm /c/ 


0.12 ppm 


Carbon Monoxide 


1 hour 
8 hour 


20 ppm 
9.0 ppm 


35 ppm 
9 ppm 


Nitrogen Dioxide 


1 hour 
Annual 


0.25 ppm 
NA 


NA 

0.053 ppm 


Sulfur Dioxide 


1 hour 
3 hour 
24 hour 
Annual 


0.25 ppm 
NA 

0.04 ppm 
NA 


NA 

0.5 ppm 
0.14 ppm 
0.03 ppm 


Respirable Particulate Matter 


24 hour 
Annual 


50 ug/m^/c/ 
30 ug/m^ 


150 ug/m^ 
50 ug/m^ 


Sulfates 


24 hour 


25 ug/m^ 


NA 


Lead 


30 day 

Calendar Quarter 


1 .5 ug/m^ 
NA 


NA 

1 .5 ug/m^ 


Hydrogen Sulfide 


1 hour 


0.03 ppm 


NA 


Vinyl Chloride 


24 hour 


0.010 ppm 


NA 



/a/ SAAQS stands for State Ambient Air Quality Standards (California). SAAQS for ozone, carbon 
monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and respirable particulate matter 
are values that are not to be exceeded. All other California standards shown are values not to be 
equaled or exceeded. 

/b/ NAAQS stands for National Ambient Air Quality Standards. NAAQS, other than ozone and those 
based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard 
is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 
concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. 

/c/ ppm = parts per million by volume; ug/m^ = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = Not ApplicatJe 



Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data Summary, 1992. 



93.574E 



A.43 



TABLE AQ-2 SAN FRANCISCO AMBIENT AIR QUAUTY MONITORING SUMMARY, 1988 - 1993 



Number of Days Standards were Exceeded and 









Maximum Concentration Measured 






Pollutant 


Standard 


1988 


1989 


199Q 


1991 


1992 


1993 


Ozone 
















1-Hour 


> 0.09 ppm 





u 


n 
u 


n 








1-Hour 


> 0.12 ppm 





n 
u 




u 








Max. 1-Hour Cone. 


(ppm) 


0.09 


0.08 


0.06 


> 0.05 


0.08 


0.08 


v^aiDun nrioriwAiuo 
















1-Hour 


> 20. ppm 





n 
u 


u 


u 








8-Hour 


> 9. ppm 




















Max. 1 -Hour Cone. 


(ppm)9 


9 


9 


8 


9 


8 


7 


Max. 8-Hour Cone. 


(ppm)6.5 


f.O 


7 n 


O.O 


O.O 




0.1 


Carbon Monoxide 


(Ellis station) 














1-Hour 


> 20. ppm 




















8-Hour 


> 9. ppm 


1 


1 














Max. 1 -Hour Cone. 


(ppm) 17 


1 9 


14. 


1 9 


14 
1 *f 


in 


in 


Max. 8-Hour Cone. 


(ppm) 10.0 


12.8 


9 


6 9 


8 4 


7.4 


6.9 


Nitrogen Dioxide 
















1-Hour 


> 0.25 ppm 




















Max. 1-Hour Cone.(ppm) 


0.12 


0.14 


0.11 


0.10 


0.09 


0.08 


Inhaiabie Particulates {PfA J 














24-Hour 


> 50 ug/m^ 


7/59^ 


13/62 


12/61 


15/60 


9/61 


5/61 


24-Hour 


> 150 ug/m^ 


0/59 


0/62 


1/61 


0/60 


0/61 


0/61 


Max. Daily Cone, (ug/m^) 


117 


101 


165 


109 


81 


69 


Particulate Sulfate 
















24-Hour 


> 25 ug/m^ 


0/61' 


0/61 


0/61 


0/60 


0/61 


0/56 


Max. 24-Hr. Cone, {ug/nr) 


8.6 


13.3 


8.9 


7.9 


18.2 


12.4 



" x/y indicates that standards were exceeded on x days out of a total of y days on which measurements 
were taken that year. 

cone. = concentration; ppm = parts per million; ug/m' = micrograms per cubic meter 

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data, 1988-1993 BAAQMD Monitoring 
Stations, 10 Arkansas Street and 939 Ellis Street. 



93.574E 



A.44 



APPENDIX D. 

TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE INFORMATION 



TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE INFORMATION 



APPENDIX D 



LEVEL OF SERVICE A 

Pedestrian Space: > 130 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 2 ped/min/ft 

At walkway LOS A, pedestrians basically move In desired paths without altering 
their movements in response to other pedestrians. Walking speeds are freely 
selected, and conflicts between pedestrians are unlikely. 

LEVEL OF SERVICE B 

Pedestrian Space: > 40 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 7 ped/min/tt 

At LOS B, sufficient area is provided to allow pedestrians to freely select 
walking speeds, to bypass other pedestrians, and to avoid crossing conflicts with 
others. At this level, pedestrians begin to be aware of other pedestrians, and to 
respond to their presence in the selection of walking path. 




,© 




4® 




LEVEL OF SERVICE C 



Pedestrian Space: > 24 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 10 ped/min/ft 



At LOS C, sufficient space is available to select normal walking speeds, and to 
bypass other pedestrians in primarily unidirectional streams. Where reverse- 
direction or crossing movements exist, minor conflicts will occur, and speeds 
and volume will be somewhat lower. 




LEVEL OF SERVICE D 



Pedestrian Space: > 15 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 15 ped/min/ft 

At LOS D, freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other 
pedestrians is restricted. Where crossing or reverse-flow movements exist, the 
probability of conflict is high, and its avoidance requires frequent changes in 
speed and position. The LOS provides reasonably fluid flow; however, 
considerable friction and interaction between pedestrians is likely to occur. 





LEVEL OF SERVICE E 



Pedestrian Space: > 6 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 25 ped/min/ft 



At LOS E, virtually all pedestrians would have their normal walking speed 
restricted, requiring frequent adjustment of gait. At the lower range of this LOS, 
fon;vard movement is possible only by "shuffling." Insufficient space is provided 
for passing of slower pedestrians. Cross- or reverse-flow movements are 
possible only with extreme difficulties. Design volumes approach the limit of 
walkway capacity, with resulting stoppages and interruptions to flow. 




LEVEL OF SERVICE F 

Pedestrian Space: < 6 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: variable 



At LOS F, all walking speeds are severely restricted, and forward progress is 
made only by "shuffling." There is frequent, unavoidable contact with other 
pedestrians. Cross- and reverse-flow movements are virtually impossible. Flow is 
sporadic and unstable. Space is more characteristic of queued pedestrians than 
of moving pedestrian streams. 



Figure 13-8. Illustration of walkway levels of service. 
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Chapter 13, TRB, 1985 




SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON DELAY 



Level 

of 
Service 


Typical 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 


Typical Traffic Condition 


A 


^ 5.0 


Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized 
and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. 


B 


5.1 - 15.0 


Minimal Delays: an occasional approach phase is fully 
utilized. Drivers begin to feel restricted. 


C 


15.1 -25.0 


Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may become 
fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. 


D 


25.1 -40.0 


Tolerable Delays: Drivers may wait through more than 
one red indication. Queues may develop but dissipate 
rapidly, without excessive delays. 


b 


4U. 1 - bU.U 


oigniTicani ueiays. volumes approacning capaciiy. 
Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles and long 
queues of vehicles form upstream. 


F 


> 60.0 


Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at capacity, 
with extremely long delays. Queues may block upstream 
intersections. 



Sources: Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board, Special Report No. 87, 
Washington, D.C., 1985; Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Circular 212, 
Transportation Research Board, 1980. 



A. 46 



ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS 



Level of Service 


Typical Delay 




(seconds/vehicle) 


A 

A 


5.0 


R 


5 1-10 


C 


10.1 -20.0 


D 


20.1 -30.0 


E 


30.1 -45.0 


F 


^ 45.0 



Sources: Transportation Research Board, Circular 373; Dowling Associates. 



APPENDIX E. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE BACKGROUND REPORT 



APPENDIX E 



APPENDIX E - Hazardous Waste Background Report 



SITE HISTORY 



The waterfront in the vicinity of the proposed project area was first occupied during the Gold 
Rush of 1848 to 1860. At this time most of the project area was under water and was 
subsequently filled with heterogeneous fill. What is known at^out the fill nnaterials is described 
below, however the exact quality and nature of the fill are unknown. It may have contained 
materials such as brick, bottles, wood, unspecified refuse, and debris from the 1906 earthquake 
and fire mixed with sand. The presence of such materials nnay be associated with elevated 
levels of organic and inorganic chemicals. 



Hazardous materials may also be present in the soil or groundwater as a results of previous or 
current land uses. These land uses in the vicinity of the proposed alignment are summarized in 
Table E-1. Referenced site addresses are shown on Figure 16 (see ENVIRONMENTAL 
SETTING, Hazards, page 105). 



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 



Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are extensively regulated by various federal, state, 
regional, and local regulations, with the major objective of protecting public health and the 
environment. The major regulations are presented below. This appendix also presents a 
summary of the agency lists that were reviewed to identify sites that are permitted to generate 
hazardous wastes or store hazardous materials in underground storage tanks as well as sites 
where soil or groundwater quality may have been degraded by hazardous substances. The date 
of each agency list reviewed is identified in Tat>le E-2. 



93.574E 



A.48 



Table E-1 

Summary of Historical and Current Land Uses In Vicinity of Harbor Service Facilities 



Address 


Name 


Business/Use 


Approximate Date 


Source 


600 to 680 eeacn street 


Selby Smelting and Leadworks 


omener 


1004-1000 






Equitable Gaslight Company 


Manufactured Gas Plant 


1 o9o-1 90o 


1|2 




California Fruit Canners Association 


Cannery ^ 


1907-1947 


1|2 




Haslett Warehouse Company 


Warehouse 


1948-1973 


1 




Warehouse Service Company 


Warehouse 


1950-1973 


1 




The Cannery 


Arcades, Bazaars 


1974-1995 


1 




Vacant and Office Space 


Office 


1974-1994 


1 


Jefferson Street 


Railroad 


Railroad 


1914-? 


2 


Hyde Street Pier 


General Petroleum Corporation 


Gas Station 


1948-1962 


1.3 




Mobil Oil 


Gas Station 


1963-1995 


1,3.4 




Standard Oil Company 


Marine Gas Station 


1948-1970 


3 




Gateway Shipwright 


Not Stated 


1953-1961 


3 




Cattolica & Lindwall 


Fish Dealer 


1954-1959 


3 




Harbor Fisheries 


Potential Fish Handling 


1955-1970 


3 




Refco Engineering Company 


Refrigeration 


1955-1957 


3 




miarinA EnninA ^ittore 
mcuilR? diyiiit? nilolo 




1 aOO 1 r 


«3 




us Coast Guard 


Rescue Station 


1955-1960 


3 




US Public Health Service 


Quarantine Station 


1955-1961 


3 




San Francisco State Historical Park 


Park 


1964-1970 


3 




Western Cal Fish, Inc. 


Netroom 


1964 


3 


2905 Hyde Street 


San Francisco State Historical 
Monument 


Not Stated 


1963-1976 


3 




Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area 


Historic Ships Unit 


1977-1981 


3 




Vacant 


None 


1982-1987 


3 




The Maritime Store 


Not Stated 


1988-1990 


3 




Maritime Programs 


Not Stated 


1991-1995 


3 


2936 Hyde Street 


Oswald Machine Worics 


Diesel Engine Repair 


1948-1971 


1.3 



See last page of table for notes 



Table E-1 

Summary of Historical and Current Land Uses in Vicinity of Harbor Service Facilities 



Address Name Business/Use Approximate Date Source 





Alioto Seafoods/Harbor Fisheries 


Fish Handling 


1980-1994 


3 




Consolidated Factors Sea Products 


Fish Handling 


1995 


3 


2937 Hyde Street 


Stein, Ross S. 


Not Stated 


1983 


3 




Vacant 


None 


1984-1995 


3 


2941 Hyde Street 


Oswald Machine Works 


Engine Repair 


1974-1994 


1.5 


440 Jefferson Street 


Alioto Fish Company 


Fish Handling 


1957-1995 


3 




Monterey Fish Market 


Fish Handling 


1985-1986 


3 




Marly Fish Company 


Fish Handling 


1987-1995 


3 




Alioto Lazio Fish Company 


Fish Handling 


1995 


3 


440 Jefferson Street 


General Petroleum 
Corporation/Mobil Oil Corporation 


Diesel and Gasoline 
Storage 


1935-1994 


1.6 


490 Jefferson Street 


Bell Snwked Fish 


Fish Snwking 


1948-1983 


1.3 




Ocean Deli Gourmet Foods 


Not Stated 


1982 


3 




Larocca A. Seafood 


Potential Fish Handling 


1983 


3 




Data Card Corp Troy 


Not Stated 


1984 


3 




The Greek Fisherman 


Potential Fish Handling 


1984 


3 




Tarantino SP Brokerage/Insurance 


Not Stated 


1984-1995 


3 




Aqua Products 


Not Stated 


1987 


3 




San Francisco Smoked Fish 


Potential Fish Snmking 


1987 


3 




Capital Strategies 


Not Stated 


1990-1995 


3 




Adams E. Insurance and Financial 
Servk^ 


Not Stated 


1991 


3 




Bohne, Dan & Son 


Not Stated 


1991-1995 


3 




Dentk^are 


Not Stated 


1991 


3 




Martel Insurance Servk:e 


Not Stated 


1991-1995 


3 




Keogler Morgan & Co. 


Not Stated 


1993-1995 


3 


494 Jefferson Street 


Conley, Balzer & Steward 


Advertising Agency 


1954-1972 


3 




Conley, Knollin & Strain 


Advertising Agency 


1974-1975 


3 



See last page of table for notes 



Table E-1 

Summary of Historical and Current Land Uses in Vicinity of Harbor Service Facilities 



Address Name Business/Use Approxinrutte Date Source 



Vacant None 1976-1980 3 

Alexis Tellis LTD Not Stated 1982-1988 3 

AJT Consultant Not Stated 1985 3 

Interocean Seafoods Potential Fish HandHng 1985-1987 3 

Levy, Albert D. Not Stated 1985-1987 3 

Taormina, Anthony Not Stated 1985 3 

France Foods Not Stated 1986-1989 3 

Bohne, Dan & Son Not Stated 1988-1989 3 

Martel Insurance Services Not Stated 1988-1989 3 

Vacant None 1990-1995 3 

496 Jefferson Street Hendry, C.J. Company/ Ship Chandlers 1953-1983 3 

Johnson & Joseph Company 

Masl<ell Marine Service Ship Chandlers 1984-1995 3 

498 Jefferson Street Old Sausalito Restaurant Restaurant 1953-1974 3 

Curiosity Shop Gift Shop 1972-1995 3 

Franceschis Restaurant 1975-1995 3 

500 Jefferson Street Unknown Printers Storage 1948-1950 1 



Sources: 



1. Sanborn Maps 

2. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center Project Area and Environs. 
Archaeological/Historical Consultants, Marcin, 1989 

3. San Francisco city directories including the Polk Directories and the Haines Criss Cross Directories 

4. Site Visit, Mary McDonald, Orion Environmental Associates, June 7, 1995 

5. Port of San Francisco Map 

6. Site Investiqation/Characterizatton Report. Alton Geoscience, Inc., September 20, 1990 



Prepared by Orion Environmental Associates, 1995 



A. 5! 



Table E-2. Summary of Hazardous Materials Databases Reviewed 



Name of List 


Responsible Agency 


Accronym 


Date of List 


Number of Sites 
Identified 


National Priority List 


USEPA 


NPL 


Aug. 1994 





Potentially 
Contaminated Sites 


USEPA 


CERCUS 


Aug. 1994 


2 


Toxic Chemical 
Release Inventory 


USEPA 


SARA 


Aug. 1992 





Federal Supertund 
Liens 


USEPA 


UENS 


Nov. 1992> 





USEPA Hazardous 
Waste Generators 


USEPA 


RCRA 


June 1994 


44 


Abandoned Sites 
Program 


DTSC 


CAL-SITES 


Aug. 1994 


5 


California Bond 
Expenditure Plan 


DTSC 


BEP 


Jan. 1990 





Hazardous Waste 
and Substances Site 
Ust 


CA Office of Planning 
and Research 


CORTESE 


Nov. 1990 


8 


Leaking 
Underground 
Storage Tanks 


Regional Water 
Quality Control Board 


LUST 


Jul. 1994 


9 


Waste Management 
Unit Discharge 
Systems 


Regional Water 
Quality Control Board 


WMUDS 


Sept. 1994 





Solid Waste 
Information System 


CA Integrated Waste 
Management Board 


SWIS 


Mar. 1993 





wasie uiscnarge 
System 


K^f\ cnvironrneniai 
Affairs Agency 






U 


Emergency 
Response 
Notification System 


US Coast Guard, US 
Navy 


ERNS 


June 1993 





Underground 
Storage Tanks 


State Water 
Resources Control 
Board 


UST 


Aug. 1994 


11 



APPENDIX E 



Federal Regulations and Agency Lists Reviewed 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the lead agency responsible for 
enforcing federal regulations that affect public health or the environment. The primary federal 
laws and regulations include: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA); the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); 
and the Superfund Act and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Federal statutes pertaining to 
hazardous materials and wastes are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). 

These laws require that responsible parties report any known hazardous waste contamination of 
soil or groundwater as defined in 40 CFR to the U.S. EPA. State and local agencies must also 
be informed. Any contamination that threatens the public health or environment must be 
remediated by the responsible party according to standards set by the U.S. EPA. RCRA also 
contains regulations for the safe storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

The federally published lists of sites which trace the status of suspected hazardous materials 
sites or identify sites permitted to generate hazardous wastes include: 

• the National Priority List (NPL), which prioritizes sites with significant risk to human 
health and the environment; 

• the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 
System (CERCLIS), which tracks contaminated properties identified under CERCLA and 
SARA; 

• the toxic chemical release inventory which identifies sites which have reported chemical 
release to the air, water, or land as required by Title III of the Supertund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); 

• the Federal Superfund Liens list (LIENS) which identifies properties where the U.S. EPA 
has placed a lien because the U.S. EPA has spent money for remedial action or notified 



93.574E 



A.53 



APPENDIX E 



the potential of liability for remedial action. This list is compiled by the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring of the U.S. EPA; and 

• the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) which lists releases of oil and 
hazardous substances reported pursuant to section 103 of CERCLA; section 311 of the 
Clean Water Act; and sections 300.51 and 300.65 of the National Oil and Hazardous 
Substances Contingency Plan. 

• the list of facilities permitted to generate hazardous wastes under RCRA. 

State and Reolonal Regulations and Acency Lists Reviewed 

The USEPA has delegated much of its regulatory authority to the individual states. The 
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) of the California Environmental Protection 
Agency (Cal EPA), formerly a division of the Department of Health Services, enforces hazardous 
materials and waste regulations in California, in conjunction with the USEPA. The DTSC is 
responsible for regulating the management of hazardous substances including the remediation 
of sites contaminated by hazardous substances. California hazardous materials laws 
incorporated federal standards, but are often more strict than federal laws. The primary state 
laws include: the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), the state equivalent of 
RCRA; and the California Hazardous Substance Account Act, the state equivalent of CERCLA. 
State hazardous materials and waste laws are contained in the California Code of Regulations, 
Titles 22 and 26. 

The published lists of sites which trace identification and remediation progress within the state 
include: 

• 

• CALSITES, which was previously referred to as the Abandoned Sites Program 
Information System (ASPIS), and identifies potential hazardous waste sites, which are 
then screened by the DTSC. Sites on this list which are designated for no further action 
by the DTSC were not identified by the database review; 



93.574E 



A.54 



APPENDIX E 



• the Annual Work Plan, formeriy known as the Bond Expenditure Plan (BEP), which is a 
site-specific expenditure plan for the appropriation of California Hazardous Substance 
Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 funds; this list is no longer updated^ 

• the CORTESE List, which is a compilation of information from various sources listing 
potential and confirmed hazardous waste of hazardous substance sites, previously 
maintained by the State Office of Planning and Research. Thjs list is no longer updated. 

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is authorized by the State Water Resources 
Control Board to enforce provisions of the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. 
This act gives the RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of 
groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened and to require remediation of the site. 
If necessary. Both of the RWQCB and the DTSC are part of the Cal EPA. 

The RWQCB maintains the following lists identifying hazardous waste sites that were reviewed: 

• the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks JST) list, which is required by the Health and 
Safety Code and tracks remediation status of known leaking underground tanks; 

• the Waste Management Unit Discharge System (WMUDS) list of sites which tracks waste 
management units. The list contains sites identified on the Toxic Pits List, which is 
required by the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (Katz Bill), and places relatively strict limitations 
on the discharge of hazardous wastes into surface impoundments, toxic ponds, pits and 
lagoons (the RWQCB is required to inspect all surface impoundments annually). The 
WMUDS list also identifies sites targeted by the Solid Waste Assessment Program where 
there is a possible risk of solid waste disposal sites (larxJfills) discharging hazardous 
wastes, threatening either water or air quality. 

The RWQCB also maintains other lists of sites that were not reviewed as part of this EIR. These 
lists include: 



93.574E 



A.55 



APPENDIX E 



• the Non-Tank or Unauthorized Toxic Releases List, which traces the status of other 
hazardous releases to the environment; 

• the Toxic Pits List, which Is required by the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (Katz Bill), and places 
relatively strict limitations on the discharge of hazardous wastes into surface 
impoundments, toxic ponds, pits and lagoons (the RWQCB is required to inspect all 
surface impoundments annually); and 

• the Solid Waste Assessment Program targets sites arxi maintains a list of where there is 
a possible risk of solid waste disposal sites (landfills) discharging hazardous wastes, 
threatening either water or air quality. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) may impose specific requirements on 
remediation activities to protect ambient air quality from dust or other airborne contaminants. 

The California Waste Management Board maintains a list of active, inactive or closed solid waste 
disposal sites and transfer facilities, as legislated under the Solid Waste Management and 
Resource Recovery Act of 1972. The list is referred to as the Solid Waste Information System 
(SWIS). 

The California Environmental Affairs Agency Office of Hazardous Material Data Management 
produces a database containing information on sites which have been issued waste discharge 
requirements (NPDES permits). These sites are allowed to discharge specified levels of 
chemicals under their waste discharge requirements. This list is referred to as the Waste 
Discharge Systems (WDS). 

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) also requires permitting of all underground 
storage tanks (USTs) containing hazardous substances. The California laws regulating USTs are 
primarily found in the Health and Safety Code; combined with regulations adopted by the State 
Water Board , these laws comprise the requirements of the state UST program. The laws 
contain requirements for UST permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, 



93.574E 



A.56 



APPENDIX E 



repairs and corrective actions and closures. In accordance with state laws, counties are 
required to implement a UST program and in some cases, the county requirements are more 
stringent than those of the State. Cities are also given the option to implement a UST program. 
The Regional Water Quality Control Board may also oversee corrective actions. 

Local Regulations 

Several agencies within the City are involved in the use and storage of hazardous materials and 
the disposal of hazardous wastes. The San Francisco Department of Public Health, Bureau of 
Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials (DPH), is the primary local environmental 
regulatory agency responsible for enforcement of City, state and federal environmental health 
codes and regulations. DPH maintains records of underground storage tank modifications and 
releases of hazardous chemicals from storage tanks, and records where toxic chemicals are 
used, manufactured and/or stored by San Francisco businesses. 

DPH has the authority over monitoring the storage of flammat>le liquids, which includes 
underground tanks, and other hazardous materials. The DPH also has a memoranda of 
understanding with the RWQCB that gives the City local oversight authority over fiazardous 
waste remediation activities. 

The DPH maintains the Local Oversight Facilities list which includes underground storage tank 
sites under the jurisdiction of the Local Oversight Program of the DPH. No additional sites were 
identified on this list that were not identified on the LUST list. 

The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), Bureau of Fire Prevention and Investigation, 
conducts inspections of underground storage tank installations and has permit authority over the 
storage of flammable liquids. The SFFD also maintains documentation of known above-ground 
storage tanks. 

The Department of Public Works administers the San Francisco Public Works Code. Article 20, 
"Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Waste," known as the Maher Ordinance. This ordinance. 



93.574E 



A.57 



APPENDIX E 



enacted in 1986, requires an investigation of hazardous wastes in these soil as a prerequisite for 
building permits when Ihe permit for a construction project ... involves the disturbance of at 
least 50 cubic yards of soil...'. In addition, Section 1013 of the Maher Ordinance, construction 
on City Property, applies the same requirements to improvements on land under the City's 
jurisdiction, when no building permit is required. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WORKER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed/OSHA) and the California 
Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker 
safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining 
to worker safety are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 (29 CFR) as 
authorized in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe 
workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to hazardous materials handling. In 
California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace 
safety regulations; Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. 

The state regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace are included in 
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which contain requirements for safety training, 
availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance 
exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA also 
enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain worker safety training and 
hazard information requirements, such as procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous 
substances, communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their 
handling, and prep)aration of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at 
hazardous waste sites. 

ASBESTOS ABATEMENT REGULATIONS 

Where demolition or renovation work will involve 100 square feet or more of asbestos-containing 
materials, the State law requires that the contractor be certified and that certain procedures be 



93.574E 



A.58 



APPENDIX E 



followed/ Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, 
requires that local agencies not Issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated 
compliance notification requirements under applicable Federal regulations regarding hazardous 
air pollutants, including asbestos. 

The BAAQMD is vested by the California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, 
including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement. They are to be notified ten 
days in advance of any proposed demolition. Notification includes the names, addresses and 
phone numbers of operations and persons responsible, including the contractor; description and 
location of the structure to be renovated /demolished including size, age and prior use, and the 
approximate amount of friable asbestos scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition 
nature of planned work and methods to be employed; procedures to be employed to meet 
BAAQMD requirements; and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. 

According to the BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, if a structure is to be demolished, friable and 
potentially friable asbestos must be removed and disposed of properly. Workers and the public 
could become exposed to asbestos fibers as they become airborne during removal.^ 

The local office of Cal/OSHA must be notified of asbestos abatement to be carried out. 
Asbestos contractors must follow the State regulations contained in Title 8 of the California Code 
of Regulations, Sections 1529 and 341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work 
involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos-containing materials. Asbestos removal 
contractors must be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of 
California. Pursuant to California law, the Bureau of Building Inspection (BBI) would not issue 
the required permit until the applicant has complied with the notice requirements above as well 
as requirements for proper waste disposal (described below). 



^ Assembly Bill 2040, Asbestos 1S85, Added Section 24223 and Chapter 25 to Dtviston 20 of the Health and Safety Code. 

^ Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations, Regulation 1 1 , Rule 2, Asbestos Demolttion. 
Renovation and Manufacturing, adopted May 1981. 



93.574E 



A.59 



APPENDIX E 



Office Bulletin No. 88-4 of the San Francisco Fire Department contains local requirements for 
asbestos abatement to protect against fire hazards. This bulletin requires the use of fire resistive 
or non-combustible materials for any temporary ast>estos abatement structures constructed; 
limits abatement to a maximum of two floors within a building; requires that exits are maintained 
in accordance with the applicable requirements of the San Francisco Fire Code; requires 
maintenance of opening protection for rated shafts in accordance with Title 24 of the California 
Code of Regulations; requires posting of a notice of asbestos abatement adjacent to the main 
fire alarm panel; restricts impairment of life safety systems to those floors where asbestos 
abatement is in process; and requires fire extinguishers in the appropriate locations. 

LEAD-BASED PAINT ABATEMENT REGULATIONS 

In accordance with regulatory guidance, lead-based paint waste that has been separated from 
building materials (such as delaminated or chipping paint) must be evaluated separately from 
other building materials for waste disposal purposes during building demolition. Accordingly, 
any chipping or delaminated paint would need to be removed before any renovation or 
demolition activities. Depending on the level of lead identified in the paint, it may require 
disposal as a hazardous waste. Building materials which still have the paint adhered to them 
may generally be disposed of as regular construction debris, regardless of the lead level in the 
paint. 

The Lead in Construction Standard contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Section 1926.62 applies to the removal of chipping or delaminated lead-based paint. In 
accordance with this standard, it will be necessary for workers to wear respiratory protection 
until the work is completed or until an employee exposure assessment can demonstrate that air 
lead levels during scraping are below the permissit>le exposure limit (PEL). Other applicable 
requirements of the standard include worker awareness training, use of protective clothing, 
provisions for change areas and hand washing facilities, biological monitoring, and development 
of a site specific compliance program. California regulations relating to the abatement of lead- 
based paint are identical to the Federal regulations. 



93.574E 



A.60 



APPENDIX E 

WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS 

All California latxJfills have been segregated by regulatory authority into the categories of Qass I, 
Qass II and Qass III facilities. Class I facilities can accept hazardous wastes with chemical 
levels below the federal land disposal restriction (land ban) treatment standards. Class II and III 
facilities can accept non-hazardous wastes that meet acceptance criteria determined by the 
State for organic and inorganic compounds; each landfill has an individual acceptance criteria. 

Waste disposal is regulated by the RWQCB and will be predicated on the concentrations of the 
chemical constituents that are present or the characteristics of the wastes being disposed of. 
Soil with total petroleum hydrocarbon or organic compound concentrations above the detection 
limit must be disposed of at an appropriately landfill facility or treated to reduce the levels of 
chemicals in the soil; the concentration of the compounds present will determine the appropriate 
type of disposal facility. In general, soil with total petroleum hydrocarbon levels up to 100 
milligrams per kilogram can be disposed of at a Class III disposal facility. If the concentration is 
between 100 and 1,000 milligrams per kilogram and be disposed of at a Class II disposal facility 
and if the concentration is greater than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram. Class I disposal would be 
required. 

The disposal alternative is also predicated on the total and soluble concentrations of metals. 
Soil with total metal concentrations that are above the Total Threshold Limit Concentration 
(TTLC) and soluble metal concentrations that are above the Soluble Threshold Limit 
Concentration (STLC) must be disposed of at a Class I disposal facility or treated.^ The Class II 
and III landfills in the Bay Area have acceptance criteria for lead that are lower than the STLC. 



The total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) and the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) are criteria 
used tor waste classification purposes. If the waste contains a total concentration of a constituent and a 
concentration greater than the TTLC, It is considered a hazardous waste. If the total concentration is greater 
than ten times the STLC, then it would be necessary to perform a waste extraction test to determine the 
soluble concentration. If the soluble concentration is greater than the STLC, the waste would be considered 
hazardous. The waste extraction test involves a ten times dilution of the sample; because of this, it would be 
impossible for the soluble concentration to exceed the STLC unless the total concentration exceeded ten 
times the STLC. 



93.574E 



A.61 



APPENDIX E 



Soil with no concentrations of organic chemicals above detection limit and total and soluble 
metal concentrations that are below the TTLC and STLC may be used on-site or transported off- 
site as unrestricted waste. 

Lead-based paint would be considered a hazardous waste because the total lead concentration 
would be greater than the TTLC of 1 ,000 milligrams per kilogram. It would be necessary to 
dispose of the paint at a Class I facility. 

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control has classified friable, finely divided and 
powdered wastes containing greater than one percent asbestos as a hazardous waste.* A 
friable waste is one which can be reduced to powder or dust under hand pressure when dry. 
Non-friable asbestos-containing wastes are not considered hazardous and are not subject to 
regulation under Title 22, Division 4.5 of the California Code of Regulations. The management of 
these wastes would still be subject to any requirements or restrictions which nnay be imposed by 
other regulatory agencies. The State standard for classification of asbestos wastes is contained 
in Section 66261.24 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Asbestos is not currently 
regulated as a hazardous waste under the RCRA; because of this it is considered a non-RCRA 
waste. Asbestos wastes totalling more than 50 pounds must be transported by a registered 
waste hauler to an approved treatment, storage or disposal facility. 

Wastes containing asbestos may be disposed of at any landfill which has waste discharge 
requirements issued by the RWQCB which allow disposal of asbestos-containing materials, 
provided that the wastes are handled and disposed of in accordance with the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, the Clean Air Acts National emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and 
Title 22 of the Code of California Regulations (Division 4.5). The Department of Toxic 
Substances Control also has treatment standards for asbestos-containing wastes which require 
submittal of a notification and certification form to the land disposal facility as well as wetting 
and containment of the asbestos-containing materials. 



California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Fact Sheet. Asbestos Handling. Transport and Disposal. 
October 1993. 



93.574E 



A.62 



APPENDIX E 



It will be necessary to conduct toxicity testing to determine whether any creosote coated piers 
are considered hazardous. Depending on the results of the testing, the piers may require 
disposal at a class I or II disposal site. 

The owner of properties where hazardous waste are produced or abatement would occur must 
have a Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by and Registered with, the California 
Department of Toxic Substances Control in Sacramento. The contractor and hauler of the 
material are required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the hauling of the material 
from the site and the disposal of the material. 

DREDGING AND SEDIMENT DISPOSAL REGULATIONS 

Dredge disposal permits are obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which has federal 
jurisdiction over fill, dredging, and dredged sediment disposal under sections 9 and 10 of the 
River and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In accordance with the Clean 
Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviews the permits and provides 
comments to the Corps of Engineers on environmental impacts of the proposed dredging and 
dredged spoils disposal on Bay water quality. The Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission also issues permits for dredging and disposal. 

Under powers delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water 
Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Resources Control Board certifies compliance of 
dredging with section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. In March 1987 the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Interim Requirements for Dredging Project 
Monitoring in San Francisco Bay. 

Prior to approval of any dredging permit, it would be necessary to conduct sediment testing and 
comply with the above regulations. The Regional Water Quality Control Board would review the 
results of the sediment testing to determine whether the dredging would have any impact on 
Bay water quality. Additional testing may be required until the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board was assured that dredging and disposal of the dredge spoils at an approved in-Bay 



93.574E 



A.63 



APPENDIX E 



disposal site would not cause an environmental problem. If this determination could not be 
made, the Regional Water Quality Control Board would make the decision that it would be 
necessary to find an alternative disposal method for the dredge spoils or that dredging should 
not take place. 

Alternatives to in-Bay disposal include ocean disposal, confined upland disposal, and wetlands 
creation and beneficial reuse. An approved ocean disposal site has not been established at this 
time. For confined upland disposal, the dredge spoils would have to meet the acceptance 
criteria for a Class I, II, or III landfill. Beneficial reuse options include landfill cover, levee 
restoration and other related uses. Most of the dredge spoils from the San Francisco Bay have 
been deposited in-Bay at the Alcatraz Disposal Site. 



93.574E 



A.64 



APPENDIX F. 

EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS 



APPENDIX F 
EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS 



EIR AUTHORS 

San Francisco Planning Department 
Office of Environmental Review 
1660 Mission Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Barbara Sahm, Environmental Review Officer 
Sharon Rogers, Project Coordinator 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Port of San Francisco 

Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Dan Hodapp, Project Coordinator 
Sharon Polledri, Project Director 

EIR CONSULTANT 

The Duffey Company 

101 The Embarcadero, Suite 214 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Marilyn Duffey, Project Manager 
Anne Henny, Land Use 

EIR SUBCONSULTANTS 

Orion Environmental Associates 
World Trade Center, Room 250-R 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Joyce Hsiao, Water Quality, Air Quality 

Michele Bellows, Public Services and Public Utilities 

Mary McDonald, Hazards 

Evelyn Shellenberg, Report Production 

Korve Engineering 

155 Grand Avenue, Suite 400 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Luba Wyznyckyj, Traffic and Parking 



A.65 



APPENDIX F 
EIR Authors and Consultants 



SOMA Corporation 
1260B 45 th Street 
Emeryville, CA 94608 

Norm Ozaki, Human Health Risk Assessment 
Glenn Leong, Water Quality 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants 
500 12th Street, Suite 100 
Oakland, CA 94607 

Sally Maxwell, Peer Review 

Bill Martin, Water Quality Sampling 

Terrance Cooke, Water Quality 

MEC Analytic Systems, Inc. 
2433 Impala Drive 
Carlsbad, CA 92008 

David Robinson, Principal 
David Cannon, Water Quality 
Cindy Fuller, Marine Biology 

Brunsing Associates 
930 Shiloh Road #44 
Windsor. CA 95492 

William Mullenhoff, Water Quality Baseline Data 

Archaeological/Historic Consultants 
609 Aileen Street 
Oakland, CA 94609 

Lawrence Shoup, Cultural Resources 

EJL Associates 

926 "J" Street Suite 801 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Eugenia Laychak, Fisheries Information 



A.66 

f